Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BREAD RATIONING (PETITION)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg leave of the House to present a Petition on behalf of a number of residents in the town of Swanage, Dorset. The Petition showeth:
That the rationing of bread will inflict great hardship, both on consumers and on distributors, involving both wastage and shortage through defects in the system, and that the allowance for housewives and manual workers is inadequate. Wherefore, the 'petitioners pray that such Order be cancelled with the least possible delay. And as in duty bound they will ever pray.

Petition to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Tyres (Replacement Forms)

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, before an individual who is entitled to a supplementary petrol allowance for business purposes can obtain replacement of tyres, he is obliged to fill in a form in order to obtain the necessary form to apply for such tyres; and whether this duplication can now be dispensed with.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): There is no duplication. The first form is a request to the regional petroleum officer to confirm that the applicant has a petrol rationing category which qualifies him to obtain new motor car tyres. This confirmation is given by endorsement on a form of application for new tyres, which that officer issues and which the applicant sends to his tyre supplier. It is then used by the tyre supplier to obtain tyres from the wholesaler or manufacturer.

Sir G. Fox: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that people are tired of filling in forms in this country?

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure they would rather fill in forms than not have tyres.

Cotton Industry (Working Party Report)

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish an abridged and simplified edition of the Report of the Working Party on the Cotton Industry.

Sir S. Cripps: Though I appreciate the desirability of the widest possible dissemination of the Working Party's Report, I should hope that all those who are interested will read it in full, since it would not be possible to make an accurate abridgment.

Mr. Prescott: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that it is impossible for the ordinary working people of Lancashire to read this Report in full; that they take a very great interest in the Report; and would he reconsider the possibility and the desirability of publishing an abridged and simplified version?

Sir S. Cripps: We have considered the possibility and the desirability, and we have come to the conclusion that it would not be desirable, because it might lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.

Sir Waldron Smithers: The Government do not want the workers to know.

Mr. Bossom: How many copies of the Report have been printed

Sir S. Cripps: I would like to have notice of that.

Textile Mills (Canteens)

Mr. Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many mills in


Lancashire engaged in the textile trade have made application for a licence to erect or reconstruct a canteen for the operatives.

Sir S. Cripps: Since May, 1945, to the end of June, 1946, 26 such applications, involving an expenditure of£53,800, have been received; 23 building licences have been issued and three recent applications are now receiving attention.

Linoleum Industry (Linseed Oil)

Mr. Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed further to reduce the allocation of linseed oil to the linoleum industry after the present month.

Sir S. Cripps: The allocation of linseed oil to the linoleum industry in August will be maintained at the current rate. Future allocations will be determined in the light of the latest information about the supply situation.

Mr. Prescott: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it will be possible to increase the allocation for September?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot possibly say until we know the supply situation.

Surplus Wool Stocks

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade, since our stocks of raw wool are 797,000,000 lbs. at home and 2,290,000,000 lbs. abroad, exclusive of quantities at port and in transit, why some of these surplus stocks cannot be exchanged for timber and lead from Austria and silk from Italy, as both countries are anxious to make the exchange.

Sir S. Cripps: His Majesty's Government are negotiating for the purchase of timber from Austria, and would be interested in obtaining any supplies of lead that might be available. Austrian exporters would be able to use the sterling thus obtained to make purchases of any needed goods available in the sterling area, and not only wool. Silk is now imported on private account, but I understand that the grades which we need have not so far been available from Italy at prices attractive to our importers.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at least 15,000 standards of timber in Austria, cut

to English specifications, have been waiting to come here, and that they will take our wool? Why is there all this delay, because it has been hanging fire now for months? Will he do something quickly?

Sir S. Cripps: There is a delay, but arrangements have to be made as regards financial rearrangement with Austria, and those have not yet been completed.

Watch Repairs (Charges)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the overcharging by watch repairers; and whether he is contemplating any steps to deal with this.

Sir S. Cripps: Complaints about charges for watch repairing are made from time to time, but I am unable to say if they are justified. It should be borne in mind that watch parts are not so readily or cheaply obtained as formerly, and some of the increases in repair charges may, therefore, be perfectly reasonable. In view of the wide variety of the services rendered, I am not sure that any control would be administratively practicable, but I have asked the Central Price Regulation Committee to consider whether any control of repair charges is necessary and practicable.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the replacement of a watch glass, which before the war might have cost 6d., now often costs 5s.? Cannot something be done in that direction?

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that some control may be necessary, and I will see if we can do anything about it.

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Pritt: asked the President of me Board of Trade whether he will arrange for an issue of clothing coupons to ballotees on their discharge from work in the mines, corresponding to some extent to the issue thereof to men and women demobilised from the Armed Forces.

Sir S. Cripps: Workers who have been conscripted or directed to heavy manual employment in industry are entitled, equally with those who enter it voluntarily, to supplementary coupon facilities; these are calculated as far as possible to offset any extra wear and tear caused


by their work, and should, with their ordinary coupon ration, enable them to maintain an adequate stock of clothing. No industrial worker is entitled to a special supplement on leaving his job, and there would be no justification for making an exception in the case of ballotees to the mines.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what additional clothing coupon allocation it is intended to make to schoolchildren who will be engaged in agricultural harvesting this year, in view of the added wear and tear involved.

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I can make no provision for young harvesters as such. I would remind my hon. Friend that, between 1st August next and 1st March, 1947, children between 10½ and 16 will receive 6o coupons from the basic ration and supplementary coupons and those between 16 and 18, 50 coupons.

Harris Tweed (Yarn Supplies)

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of stamped Harris tweed produced in 1938 and in 1943, respectively; how much was exported in each of these years to the U.S.A.; and whether he will now state if it is his intention to increase supplies of yarn to meet the heavy and increasing demand of this industry and especially that of ex-Servicemen and women entering or re-entering the industry.

Sir S. Cripps: The amount of Harris Tweed stamped in the years 1938 and 1943 was 2,897,104 yards and 1,722,387 yards, respectively. The amount has increased rapidly since 1943 and is now back at approximately the 1938 level. No information is available as to how much of this was exported to the U.S.A. As to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 3rd June.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many men who have been demobilised, and who have been trying to set themselves up in this business so as to earn a livelihood in their own home area, cannot do so because of the difficulties in getting supplies of certificated yarn?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a matter which was dealt with in the answer en 3rd June.

Mattresses (Allocation)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the recent allocation of 25,00o mattresses to hotels and boarding houses for rehabilitation purposes is to be made from stocks that would otherwise be available for the holders of priority dockets who are at present unable to obtain mattresses, or from what other sources;
(2) whether he is aware that there is a shortage of flock mattresses in the Edinburgh area; that while many people holding priority dockets can be supplied with bed-ends and springs, they are unable to obtain mattresses; and what steps he proposes to take to overcome this shortage.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any special difficulty in supplies of mattresses for Edinburgh, but, if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will give me details. To meet present and accumulated demand, civilian production, which is already nearly equal to the prewar level and well ahead of bedstead production, is being increased as rapidly as ticking supplies permit. The recent allocation to certain hotels, boarding houses and holiday camps, which represents about 1 per cent. of present production, was made from current manufacture.

Natural Rubber (Export)

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, having regard to the superior qualities of natural, as compared with synthetic, rubber, 11,970 tons of the former were sold to the U.S.A. for 20¼ U.S. cents per pound f.o.b. Malaya in February, while as much as 18½ U.S. cents per pound c.i.f. United Kingdom port were paid to the U.S.A. for 1,917 tons of the latter; and whether he will arrange for British requirements of natural rubber to be satisfied before it is shipped to foreign countries.

Sir S. Cripps: Natural rubber being in short supply is under international allocation and, in the period to which the hon. Member refers, it was necessary to supplement our allocation of natural rubber by supplies of synthetic rubber from the U.S.A. The price charged to us for this synthetic rubber, c.i.f. United Kingdom ports, was the same as the price to consumers, ex plant in the U.S.A. There


has recently been a substantial improvement in the supplies of natural rubber, and our current allocations will enable British manufacturers to revert wholly to natural rubber by the end of September. No further imports of general purpose synthetic rubber are contemplated.

Bird of Paradise Plumage (Importation)

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that bird of paradise plumage is on sale in various shops in London in spite of the prohibition against its importation; and what action does he propose to take in the matter.

Sir S. Cripps: I intend to maintain the prohibition against the importation of bird of paradise feathers. I cannot say whether the plumage to which the hon. Member refers is derived from old stocks, but I shall be glad to consider any facts which are brought to my notice about it.

Mr. Lipson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to prohibit the sale of these articles?

Sir S. Cripps: Not if it is old stock, but if the hon. Gentleman can give me any further information on the subject, I will certainly look into it.

Football Pools (Paper Allocation)

Mr. Nally: asked the President of the Board of Trade what allocations of paper are now being made to the proprietors of football pools; how such allocations compare with the paper supplies so used in 1938–39; and what steps he is taking to prevent football pools supplementing their present paper allocation by purchases from paper merchants, printers and other suppliers.

Sir S. Cripps: The allocation of paper for football pools is 2½ per cent. of the quantity used in 1938–39. The amount allowed to the principal pool promoters equals 420 tons in four months. They have given an undertaking that they will not supplement their allocation by purchases from paper merchants and others; and care is taken to see that any such purchases by other promoters is deducted from the quantities licensed to them.

Mr. Nally: Before agreeing to this increased allocation for the pools, did my right hon. and learned Friend take any steps to see what supplies of propaganda literature had been held back by the principal firms which should have been given as salvage during the war, having been in existence since 1939?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot answer that question specifically, but I imagine that all relevant circumstances were inquired into.

Mr. Pritt: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the ration is sufficient to permit them to send last week to my cottage in the country nine large circulars addressed to a number of people, none of whom ever lived there?

Cotton Buying Commission (Location)

Mr. Marples: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether before reaching a decision as to which Lancashire town will be the centre for the Cotton Purchasing Commission, he will receive a deputation from Merseyside interests directly affected.

Mr. Moody: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement concerning the probable location of the headquarters of the Cotton Buying Commission when it has been established.

Sir S. Cripps: It is proposed that the administrative headquarters of the Cotton Buying Commission, when it has been established by legislation, shall be in Liverpool. It will no doubt open branch offices elsewhere, as may best suit the convenience of its business.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept my thanks for this decision, which will help the employment position, as it is serious on Merseyside?

Papermaking (Straw)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with the impending decrease in our livestock, involving a lesser demand for straw on the farms, he will ensure that there is no cessation of the purchase of straw for papermaking and endeavour to secure an assurance that an increased tonnage of home-produced straw is used for paper-making to save shipping space and to


conserve the payment in sterling or dollars which is called for by importing supplies from overseas.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) on Friday last.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there is considerable room for improvement by this Government in this matter, and in most other matters as well?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that there is no more room for more straw in the paper-treating plant.

Leather (Hides and Skins)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much the actual delivery of leather fell below the quota allocations for the last period; add if he has any report to give as to the success of his Department recently in purchasing hides and skins.

Sir S. Cripps: Returns of deliveries of leather during the June quarter are not yet complete, but I will send the information to the hon. Member as soon as it is ready. As regards the second part of the Question, while it would be premature to draw firm conclusions, purchases have increased considerably this month.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during the previous quarter the licensed allocations were not delivered, in full, and why has he allowed leather to be exported from this country when it could have been made up here, thereby providing more employment and more dollars?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question on the Paper.

Cotton Control (Stocks)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the quantities and value of cotton held by the Control in overseas countries; if he will name those countries and give details of the amount and value in each, respectively;
(2) how much cotton, and in what grades, is held by the Control; and what was the cost price.

Sir S. Cripps: The total quantity of cotton held by the Cotton Control on 31st

March last amounted to about 295,000 tons in the United Kingdom and 220,000 tons abroad or afloat costing about£37 million and£26 million respectively. It would not be desirable to publish details of quantities and value by grades and location.

Sir W. Smithers: Why is it necessary to have all this secrecy? How much of this cotton was bought for cash and how much in futures dealings, and if in futures dealings, which foreign markets were used?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member will put those questions on the Paper, I will answer them.

Sir W. Smithers: I keep on putting them down.

Mr. Gallacher: Never despair.

Footwear (Coupon Downpointing)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reduce by two the coupon value of boots and shoes now that supply has practically caught up with demand.

Lady Noel-Buxton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement about a reduction in the number of coupons required for footwear.

Sir S. Cripps: Supplies of leather are still short and I am, therefore, introducing a range of lower pointings for footwear which will particularly affect those types which require least leather. For instance, men's shoes with rubber composition soles will be reduced from nine coupons to seven and women's shoes similarly from seven to five. I am also helping agricultural and industrial workers by downpointing utility heavy working boots from nine coupons to six and safety boots and rubber boots from six to four. An Order will be published on Thursday next bringing these changes into effect as from Monday, 29th July. The complete list of changes is somewhat detailed, and I am ensuring that full information is available to traders through the Press and trade associations.

Mr. Osborne: May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, and ask him not to be weary in well-doing but to reduce the coupon value still more?

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider very particularly downpointing the cheap shoes, of which there is such a plentiful supply in Leicester and similar places?

Sir S. Cripps: Those are the type of shoes which do not use large quantities of leather.

Ladies' Shoes (Small Sizes)

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a shortage of sizes 2 and 2½ ladies' shoes at Thirsk; and whether he will take steps to secure a more equal distribution of the small sizes of ladies' shoes throughout the country.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any particular shortage of these shoes in Thirsk, but if the hon. Member will give me details of any specific complaints he has received, I will look into them. The demand for these small sizes is very limited, but I have no reason to believe that supplies are not distributed as fairly as possible throughout the country by the trade.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many dainty feet in Thirsk?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that women are buying children's or girls' shoes and wearing them themselves, and will he take steps to stop this practice, which deprives children of shoes?

Austria

Professor Savory: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now abolish the Defence Regulations for bidding trading with the enemy, so far as Austria is concerned, in view of the fact that Great Britain is now the only State which still maintains the wartime regulations forbidding trade with Austria.

Sir S. Cripps: As indicated in the announcement in the Board of Trade Journal of 20th July, I hope that within a short time a Payments Agreement with Austria will be concluded and, when this has been signed, the United Kingdom Trading with the Enemy restrictions on trade with Austria will be relaxed in such a way as to permit transactions with firms in Austria for the purchase and sale of goods.

Professor Savory: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to the last part of my Question, in which I state that this is the only country that still maintains these restrictions on trade with Austria?

Sir S. Cripps: That may be, and until we have got this Payments Agreement we cannot release them.

Plastics Industry (Raw Material)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the reduction of raw material for plastic products that are only marketable because of a shortage in cotton goods, in order to increase supplies for the maintenance of the staple plastics industries.

Sir S. Cripps: The plastic products which are being marketed as alternatives to certain textile goods are made from polyvinyl chloride. Discussions regarding the distribution of this material are taking place with the producers and users in the plastics industry, and steps have already been taken to ensure adequate supplies for the more important purposes.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the President of the Board of Trade take note of the fact that there is a plastics industry in Scotland that is threatened with closing down, that it is very undesirable that we should have any new industries closing down, and will he see to it that supplies of raw material are available to keep the industry going?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

East Indian Wool

Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for the shortage of East Indian wool required now by the carpet, felt and blanket trades of this country; and what action he proposes taking to remedy this deficiency and ensure continued production.

Sir S. Cripps: Imports of Indian carpet wool into the United Kingdom are licensed freely, but I understand that there has been greatly increased consumption of this wool in India, and measures have been taken by the Government of India to ensure supplies for the home demand there. We are in touch with the Government of India on the question of the quantities available for export.

Women's Garments (Outsizes)

Miss Bacon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increasing difficulty in obtaining women's outsize garments; and what steps he proposes to take to encourage manufacturers to increase these supplies.

Sir S. Cripps: Discussions are proceeding with the trade associations concerned, and an announcement will shortly be made about changes in the present arrangements for encouraging the production of outsizes.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any explanation of the fact that the women of North-East Leeds are so much larger than the women of Thirsk?

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take notice that this is a very urgent matter? Will he take into consideration that on 13th February a similar reply to the one he has just given was given to me in reply to a Question, and that, apparently, the position is becoming worse rather than better?

Anglo-Soviet Discussions

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the course of the discussions between His Majesty's Government and representatives of the Soviet Commissariat for Foreign Trade now in this country.

Sir S. Cripps: My discussions with Mr. Klentsov are proceeding actively, but I would prefer to say nothing further for the present.

German Timber

. Mr. Dye: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much timber it is proposed to import from Germany for housing and other purposes; and what progress has been made in felling operations in the German State forests.

Sir S. Cripps: It is our aim to obtain the maximum quantity of timber for housing and other purposes from the British zone of Germany. The organisation for felling this timber is now in operation, and up to the end of June, 79,729 tons had been brought to ports for export.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Central Internment Camp, Dehra Dun

Mr. Gallaeher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many persons, and of what nationality, are at present lodged in the Central Internment Camp at Dehra Dun in the special wing called the anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist Wing No. 2; and on what grounds are any of such persons so detained.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As the reply is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I have received a report from the Government of India stating that the total number of internees in Wing 2 is 69, made up of 35 Germans, nine Italians, 14 Bulgarians, four Hungarians, one Rumanian, three Yugoslays and three Czechs. All but nine of these persons were sent during the war from other countries to India for detention, and as soon as the necessary arrangements have been made they will be returned to their own countries or to the countries from which they have been received. Of the nine who were interned while in India, two wish to be repatriated and the remainder, whom the Government of India are not prepared owing to their record to release in India, will also be repatriated as soon as arrangements can be made. As regards the 6o internees received from abroad the Government of India is not aware of the reasons for their original detention by the Government from whom they were received. I am asking the Government of India for the grounds on which the other nine were interned, and will communicate the reply to my hon. Friend.

New Constitution (Gurkhal Community)

Colonel Gonune-Duncan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps are in contemplation to ensure that the Gurkha community resident in India secure adequate political representation in the new Constitution for that country.

Mr. A. Henderson: All such matters will be for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly and the Advisory Committee,


to be set up as provided in paragraph 20 of the Cabinet Mission's Statement of 16th May.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make sure that emphasis is given to the needs of this particular community, who are very likely to be overlooked? They number some 2,000,000, and other communities, such as the Anglo-Indian community, who are much less numerous, get recognition already.

Sind (Political Situation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the political difficulties that have arisen in Sind.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have called for a report, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on its receipt.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say when this report is likely to be received in this country, in view of the serious allegations that are made about disturbances that may arise?

Mr. Henderson: I am sure there will be no unnecessary delay on the part of the Government of India.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask how it comes about, in view of the fact that provincial self-government is operating in the Province of Sind, that the hon. Gentleman is enabled to ask this Question at all? Surely, it is not constitutional?

Mr. Henderson: I am not quite sure whether the situation has reference to the exercise of the special powers of the Governor, or to the actions of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Nicholson: In any case, it is not proper for the India Office to answer questions with regard to a Province in which self-government is working.

Mr. Speaker: I think that point would have been looked at before the Question was accepted at the Table. I am aware of the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I am sure it would have been looked at.

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot we take it that Questions which have passed the Table are quite in Order?

Civil Police (Vacancies)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary for India why an advertisement recently appeared inviting British applications for one hundred vacancies in the Indian Civil Police.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am not aware of any such advertisement having appeared recently, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars I will gladly look into the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that, in fact, no advertisement of any kind for English recruits to such offices are now put out?

Mr. Henderson: There was an advertisement issued in November last year, but there has been nothing since then.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (ELECTIONS)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma whether, in view of the urgent necessity of publishing the date of the promised elections in Burma, he will now state when these elections are to be held.

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said on this subject on 7th and 21st June, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

General Spiliotopoulos

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that General Spiliotopoulos, recently appointed chief of staff to the Greek Army, on 28th September, 1941, wrote to the high command of the gendarmerie and police administration of Salonika ordering them to search out and surrender all British soldiers hiding in Greece to the German authorities; that General Spiliotopoulos was appointed military governor of Athens in October, 1944, but was dismissed by M. Papandriou on publication of this document; whether the appointment of this officer was approved by the British Military Mission to Greece; and what representations have been made in regard to this matter.

The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): General Spiliotopoulos was promoted during the Albanian campaign to


the rank of major-general for an act of bravery. I am informed that, at the beginning of the occupation, he decided that he might be able to do useful work against the enemy by accepting the post of chief of the Gendarmerie. The order to which my hon. Friend refers was an enemy order which Spiliotopoulos, in his official capacity, was forced to sign. He gave secret orders, however, that it should not be observed. The General was, at the same time, head of various Greek secret information services; was a member of the organisation which assisted British troops left behind in Greece with false papers and in other ways; and he did good work for the Allied Intelligence Services. He was secretly appointed military governor of Attica by the Greek Government in Cairo, and on the return of the Government to Greece was transferred to an important position in the Ministry of War. In view of this record, the British Military Mission did not oppose the appointment of General Spiliotopoulos as Chief of Staff.

Mr. Wilkes: Is it not obvious that, first of all, whatever were the secret affiliations of this officer, the Germans had no complaint at all to make of him, and retained him in his position of influence throughout the occupation; and, secondly, that this letter and the file number, photostatic copies of which appeared throughout the Greek Press, and other evidence, were quite sufficient in November, 1944, to induce Mr. Papandriou to dismiss this officer? Is it not a great pity that, since we are so deeply involved in the recreation of the Greek Army, appointments such as this are made?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would say, first, that the information which I have given to my hon. Friend was information which could not be published in October, 1944, because the war was not yet over. In the second place, I am sure he will agree that that information makes a great difference. In the third place, this is not His Majesty's Government's appointment. The question for us is, whether we ought to have opposed what the Greek Government wanted to do.

Plebiscite

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the proposed form of the Greek

plebiscite for 1st September will specifically avoid any decision on the constitutional question of monarchy or republic but will allow a decision only on the personal question of whether King George shall or shall not return to Greece; and what representations have been made to the Greek Government regarding the proposed form.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As the result of concessions made by the Greek Government to the Parliamentary opposition, the electoral bill will enable the Greek people to express their will against the institution of monarchy, if they so desire. Each elector will be given three ballot papers; one will be stamped with the name of the King; one will be stamped with any constitutional formula which the opposition may suggest, for example, with the word "Republic"; the third will be left blank to be filled in as each elector may desire. Blank ballot papers on which nothing is written will be counted as votes against the King. The Prime Minister has given assurances that, if the King fails to obtain a majority, the Government will resign and the whole question of the Constitution will then be opened. His Majesty's Government have told the Greek Government with all the emphasis at their command how essential it is that the plebiscite shall be a fair and honest expression of the people's will, carried out in conditions of social and political security. But His Majesty's Ambassador in Athens has made no representations to the Greek Government about the form of the plebiscite.

Mr. Wilkes: The only point which arises is whether there will be any provision in this rather complicated and involved procedure to declare publicly the number of votes which are cast in favour of a republic?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, undoubtedly.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not clear that the Greek Government have declared the present regime as a monarchy, and that there is no provision whatsoever for counting the votes which are recorded against the monarchy? In these circumstances will the Government revise their attitude towards the plebiscite?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, under the present Constitution, Greece is a monarchy, but if large numbers of votes are


cast with the word "Republic" on them that will be declared. In that sense the number of votes for a new form of Constitution will, I think, be made public to the world.

Prison Administration

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will bring to the attention of those British prison advisers serving Athens with the British Police Mission, who are charged with giving aid in the reorganisation of the Greek prisons, paragraph 104, on page 24, of the Report of the British Legal Mission to Greece; and whether he will ask the British Police Mission to ascertain why these prisoners are not serving their sentences under the same prison conditions as are the present 12,000 ex-E.L.A.S. internees.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I share my hon. Friend's concern at the discrimination shown by the Greek Government in the exceptionally favourable treatment which has been given, since their arrest nearly two years ago, to the 27 men who were leading collaborators with the Germans. In general, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, the purpose of the Police Mission must be to improve the conditions in the other prisons. Advice to this effect has been given to the Greek Government. There has been a considerable improvement since the law for the de-congestion of the prisons was adopted, and I hope this improvement may continue.

Mr. Wilkes: While I thank my right hon. Friend for part of that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that this paragraph draws attention to the fact that these Quislings are living in converted flats, with wireless sets, electric heaters and unlimited food brought in from outside, and is not this a particularly appropriate case for intervention by the British police officers and British authorities now in liaison with the Greek Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: These men have received special treatment from all Greek Governments since they were arrested, and I believe it is on the theory that they are ex-Ministers. I have already said that the British Government view this discrimination with concern.

Mr. Wilkes: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give instructions to the British police officers in Greece that they

should make representations about this extremely disgusting matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Unless I am mistaken they have already done so.

Mr. Pritt: Can my right hon. Friend persuade the present Greek Government to live in the converted flats and let the Greek people govern Greece?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH TYROL

Mr. John Paton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Hitler-Mussolini Agreement of 1939, with regard to the South Tyrol and, particularly, the provisions contained within it which led to the forced emigration of many thousands of German-speaking Tyrolese from their homeland, is still held by His Majesty's Government to be a valid and operative document.

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ensure that a clause is inserted in the Treaty with Italy insisting on the abandonment of the Convention made in 1939 between Hitler and Mussolini for the compulsory emigration from the South Tyrol of the German-speaking Tyrolese.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Under the Treaty made by Hitler and Mussolini in 1939, German-speaking inhabitants of the South Tyrol were required to choose between German and Italian nationality; those who chose German nationality were to migrate to Germany before the end of 1942. The effect of the Treaty was thus completed some years ago, and the question now to be considered is whether something can be done to mitigate the suffering it caused. I will bear in mind the hon. Member's proposal that a clause should be inserted in the Treaty with Italy, but I hope that this, and other similar questions about the South Tyrol, may be solved by mutual agreement between the Austrian and Italian Governments. His Majesty's Government will, nevertheless, keep the matter under review, and will consider from time to time whether representations to either of the parties can usefully be made.

Mr. Paton: While I thank the Minister for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that since the withdrawal of the Allied Military Government serious allegations are being made that the Italian


authorities are reverting to the practices of 1939, and will he cause inquiries to be made to establish the facts?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no information to support that view. On the contrary, the Italian Government have made it plain that they intend to adopt a liberal course.

Professor Savory: Is the Minister aware that those unfortunate Tyrolese who were forced to leave their country are now being refused repatriation by the Italian authorities?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They were not forced to leave.

Professor Savory: Yes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: They chose to leave.

Professor Savory: Under tyrannical pressure.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, but a number of years ago. All these matters will be considered, but it is not necessarily true that it would be to the interest of these people to go back.

Professor Savory: They want to go back.

Mr. Eden: Apart from the merits of this issue, I want to be quite clear about this matter. One of the Questions refers to His Majesty's Government holding this as a valid document. As I understand it, the Government are in no way bound in respect of this issue.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are not, of course, in the least bound by the Treaty as a Treaty. What I tried to explain was that in fact its effect was completed some time ago, and, therefore, its validity does not really now arise.

Mr. Nutting: I am not sure about the latter part of the reply. When the Minister said that the frontier today was between Austria and the Italian people, does he mean that the Government will not stand by this agreement when it is made?

Mr. Noel-Baker: By which agreement?

Mr. Nutting: By the agreement of the Paris Conference.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a different thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (BRITISH LIVESTOCK PURCHASES)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what numbers of livestock the Czechoslovakian Government have purchased through U.N.R.R.A. from this country; whether this livestock has been bought in the open market or privately; and what have been the average prices paid for the respective species of livestock purchased.

Mr. Noel-Baker: U.N.R.R.A. have bought 1,742 animals in the United Kingdom for their Czechoslovak programme. They were advised about their contracts by the Livestock Export Group. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the details of their purchases in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The details of the purchases are as follow:

1,000 pure-bred Hampshire ewes at£30 each.
30 pure-bred shearling Hampshire rams at£100 each.
120 pure-bred Cheviot ewes at£27 each.
10 pure-bred Cheviot shearling rams at£55 each.
4 pure-bred Highland Blackfaced rams at£55 each.
38 pure-bred large white boars at an average price of slightly under£48 each.

In addition, U.N.R.R.A. is purchasing 540 medium heavy draft horses at an average price of£75 each.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL POOLS

Mr. Nally: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate all forms of football pool gambling; and to submit appropriate recommendations.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The whole question of football pools was one of the matters which were exhaustively considered by the Royal Commission which reported in 1933, and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by appointing another Commission to traverse the same ground.

Mr. Nally: Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1933 conditions have changed


fantastically in relation to this vast enterprise, and, taking into account the fact that in the forthcoming season the pools estimate a revenue of£16 million and for the season after they plan for£100 million, will he take this into account and give further consideration to this matter?

The Prime Minister: I will consider any representations which the hon. Member may make on this matter. But we realise that the general question of off-the-course betting is one which has to be considered as a whole.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the Prime Minister consider whether the pools, in announcing their dividends each week, ought not to have to announce the percentages they are returning?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does the Prime Minister realise that thousands of young people in the country are being brought up to feel that their destiny rests on these games of chance, and that these activities are altogether anti-social?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS (DUNKIRK CAMPAIGN)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for a special medal to be struck, similar to the Mons Medal of the 1914–18 war, to commemorate the action of men who fought through the Dunkirk campaign.

The Prime Minister: The 1939–45 Star is granted to men who took part in the operations in France and Belgium between 10th May and 19th June, 1940, and there is no time qualification. These men will also qualify for the War Medal. It is not proposed to recommend the institution of any further general award for service in these operations.

Mr. Allighan: Does not the Prime Minister realise that these men did make a distinct and distinctive contribution to the war effort, and that, just as the Mons effort was recognised, it would give great satisfaction to these particular men if their effort was recognised?

The Prime Minister: I do recognise that a great many men in various theatres gave distinctive service. The whole matter is one of great difficulty, and I do not think

we should carry it any further by trying to draw parallels between other wars.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ayles: asked the Lord President of the Council the present expenditure by His Majesty's Government on engineering research and development; the total number of men and women engaged in this research; and what immediate plans are under consideration for expanding such research.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As the answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The estimated expenditure by His Majesty's Government for the current financial year directly classifiable as for engineering research and development is£740,000. This includes work carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and by the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering. The staff, men and women, employed on this work numbers 1,049. Fifteen Industrial Research Associations are engaged primarily on engineering research and development, and they received during the last financial year£245,000 in Government grant through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. They employ about 960 staff. In addition to work which is directly classifiable as engineering research or development, a large proportion of the research and development work undertaken by some other Government Departments has engineering applications or aspects. This is predominantly the case in the Ministry of Supply and Admiralty which undertake research on armaments, ship propulsion plant and aircraft, and the results of this research are made available, where possible, to industry. The same applies, to some extent, to the Ministries of Works, Fuel and Power, and Transport. Engineering research and development are also an important part of the work of a number of Industrial Research Associations, such as the Textile Associations, not primarily concerned with engineering. It is not possible, however, to separate the cost from the total research and development


expenditure of the Departments and associations. Fundamental engineering research is carried out by universities which receive Government grants through the University Grants Committee. Plans for expansion are under consideration and, in many cases, being carried out. The whole field of engineering research for civil needs has just been examined by my Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, and I have approved proposals for the establishment of a Mechanical Engineering Research Establishment and an Establishment for research on loose boundary hydraulics to be carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Planned Agricultural Production

Mr. Dye: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether agricultural production had been planned in the British occupation zone of Germany; what acreages of wheat, rye, barley, oats and potatoes was it proposed to grow for harvesting in 1947; and what percentage of the population's requirements was it estimated to meet.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Yes, Sir; constant attention has been devoted to the planning of agricultural production in the British zone of Germany. According to present plans, the acreages to be sown for harvesting in 1947 arc as follow:

acres.


Wheat
765,000


Rye
2,000,000


Barley
400,000


Oats and Mixed Corn
1,857,000


Potatoes
1,582,000

If sufficient seeds and fertilisers can be found the area under potatoes will be increased by 300,000 acres. No reliable estimate can yet be made of the percentage of the requirements of the population which will be met.

Mr. Gallacher: Are the Government going to do anything to abolish the landowners and Junkers in the British zone?

Mails to United Kingdom

Major Wyatt: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will take steps to speed up the delivery of mails from Germany to this country; and why the cost of such mails is greatly in excess of prewar rates.

Mr. Hynd: The British authorities in Germany are now reviewing arrangements for the delivery of mail in the hope that they can be improved. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, however, that the slowness of communications in Germany, the limitations of the German internal postal service and the necessity for maintaining censorship on outgoing mail make it impossible to restore the prewar standard of service at the present time. The postal rates must be regarded as provisional. In fixing them, the Control Council found it necessary, in the absence of a fixed rate of exchange for the mark, to leave a margin of safety in order to ensure that the cost of the postal service was fully covered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Colorado Beetle

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether investigations have been made into the activities of the Colorado beetle over the last two years, respectively; and if he will give an estimate of how serious the danger from this pest is in this country.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Yes, Sir: every known occurrence of the Colorado beetle in this country during the last two years has been investigated. The beetle is now widespread in Western Europe and there is undoubtedly serious risk of its introduction here. Every effort is made to obtain the earliest possible notification of its appearance so that the necessary measures can be taken at once to destroy it. I have every reason to hope that the continuance of the energetic measures which the Ministry has pursued for many years may succeed in preventing the establishment of the pest in this country.

Sir G. Fox: Can the Minister say how many areas are affected in this country?

Mr. Williams: In the last few outbreaks one single beetle has been concerned, and so there has been no widespread outbreak.

Mr. David Renton: Is the Minister satisfied that the danger of this terrible pest is fully understood on the Continent, and that suitable steps are being taken to reduce it there?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that we have no control over the Continent. We can only exercise control over anything we may import from any part of continental Europe.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Are steps being taken to try and find the father and mother of this beetle?

Mr. Blackburn: Is the case being investigated by the Agricultural Research Council, and are they considering means which can be taken to prevent these outbreaks?

Mr. Williams: I have already informed the House that whenever a beetle is discovered in this country active and energetic steps are taken to see that there is no spreading of the pest. As we do not regard it as endemic here there is no reason to go beyond the steps we are taking.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many outbreaks of infection by Colorado beetle have been discovered in England and Wales since 3rd September, 1939; and how many insects afterwards identified as Colorado beetles have been captured.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) on 15th July.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question which I have addressed to him—whether the Agricultural Research Council are investigating the causes of these outbreaks, and what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition?

Mr. Williams: The Agricultural Research Council know the habits and ways of this particular beetle, and, once they are aware of its presence in this country, they arc quite capable of coping with it.

Waste Land (Survey)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the large amount of waste land, amounting to several million acres throughout all parts of the country which is being made no use of, he will consider having a survey made with a view to the utilisation of the more favourable portions of this land for increased food production.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir, such a survey has already been made. The National Farm Survey of 1941–43 showed that there was less than a quarter of a million acres of enclosed land in England and Wales which was not being utilised for agriculture and was lying more or less idle; such of this land as is suitable for the purpose has, for the most part, subsequently been brought into cultivation. There are also some 5½million acres of unenclosed rough hill grazings, but these grazings are used for sheep and store cattle, which, in the main, represents their most economic use. The diversion on a large scale of labour, machinery and materials in short supply to marginal or rough grazing land from more productive land would, on balance, involve a loss of food production.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, leaving on one side the question of rough land and marginal land, if he is aware that within a hundred miles of London—North, South, East and. West—there are many thousand of acres of really good land, which are not being utilised for food production?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware of that.

Mr. De la Bère: The sooner the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it, the better.

Trainees. Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many trainees have been accepted for horticulture and agriculture in each of the counties in Wales under the training scheme.

Mr. T. Williams: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any training farms run by the Government, and, if not, would he consider the advisability of running such farms?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until 1st October, when the new National Agricultural Advisory Service comes into being, I am hoping that they will take over demonstration farms.

Following is the reply:

For the whole of Wales 118 persons were placed in farm training up to 1st


July, 1946, but this figure includes 20 trainees who withdrew before completing the course. In addition 59 members of the Women's Land Army were placed

AGRICULTURAL TRAINING SCHEME


Numbers of Persons Placed in Training in each County in Wales up to 1st July, 1946.


——
Farm Training.
Institutional Training.


Agriculture.
Horticulture.
Agriculture.
Horticulture.


Total Placed.
Terminations.
Total Placed.
Terminations.
Total Placed.
Terminations.
Total Placed.
Terminations.


Anglesey
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Brecon
2
—
1
1
—
—
—
—


Caernarvon
5
1
2
—
1
—
1
—


Cardigan
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Carmarthen
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Denbigh
5
1
1
—
—
—
—
—


Flint
6
1
3
—
—
—
—
—


Glamorgan
15
3
16
4
—
—
—
—


Merioneth
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Monmouth
21
6
22
2
3
—
—
—


Montgomery
1
—
—
—
30
5
24
1


Pembroke
9
1
1
—
—
—
—
—


Radnor
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Total
72
13
46
7
34
5
25
1

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what sum has been paid in compensation during the last reported period for cattle destroyed in consequence of foot-and-mouth disease; and how much has been spent during the same period on research to find a cure for it.

Mr. T. Williams: The compensation paid during the year ended 31st March last for animals slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease was£113,691. The amount spent on research into the disease during the same period was approximately£37,000.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress is being made towards finding a cure, and whether it is proposed to extend research?

Mr. Williams: I am not sure about the positive steps, but active steps are being taken all the time, and we are hoping that we are on the right track.

Harvesting and Threshing Machinery

Major Wise: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give information as to the total number of additional combine harvesters which will be in use in this

in institutional training, but six withdraw. A table showing the numbers of agricultural and horticultural trainees in each county in Wales is as follows:

coming harvest and also the additional threshing drums which will be available for immediate threshing operations.

Mr. T. Williams: It is estimated that about 50o additional combined harvesters and over 600 additional threshing drums will be available for this year's harvest.

Crop Acreages and Yields

Major Wise: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if he can now give the acreages of wheat, barley, oats, potatoes and sugar beet grown for the 1946 harvest, as shown in the June agricultural returns; and his estimates of the total yields of each crop;
(2) if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the acreages of wheat grown in each county for the 1946 harvest; and the target he has set the W.A.E.C. of each county for the 1947 wheat harvest.

Mr. T. Williams: The preliminary results of 4th June census are not expected to be ready before about the end of August and until then reliable estimates of total yields are not available. It would not be in the public interest to give targets for each county.

Buckwheat (Prices)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the market price of buckwheat has risen very considerably during the past few weeks; and whether, in view of its use as a substitute poultry food, he will consider fixing a maximum price at which it may be sold.

Mr. T. Williams: I have no information regarding the prices at which buckwheat is now being sold. The growing of this crop is controlled by the Buckwheat and Canary Seed (Control of Cultivation) Order and is largely confined to poultry keepers for their own use. The possibility of fixing a maximum price for buckwheat has been considered and rejected from time to time during the war, and I do not consider that such control would be justified now.

Mr. Renton: In view of the great scarcity of poultry food, will the Minister reconsider this matter, which is hitting a large number of small poultry keepers? If the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries, he will, no doubt, find that that is so.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the growing of these crops is only permitted under licences granted by the county agricultural executive committees, and these licences are very scarce.

Underground Cable Laying

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that adequate cooperation exists with other Departments to ensure that such work as laying underground cables through agricultural land does not take place in circumstances, and at such a time of the year, when valuable foodstuffs are lost through such action.

Mr. T. Williams: I am satisfied that, in general, there is adequate cooperation between my Department and other Government Departments responsible for works of this kind to ensure the protection of growing crops on agricultural land wherever practicable. If, however, my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, where it appears that there has not been such cooperation, and will let me have details. I will be glad to look into it.

Cut Grown Wheat, Bedford

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Agriculture if the local W.A.E.C.

gave consent to the cutting down of some 20 acres of growing wheat in order that the Aeronautical Research Station, near Bedford, might be extended.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture haw much growing corn has been cut on a farm at Milton Ernest, Bedford, to accommodate a new research station.

Mr. T. Williams: As stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 17th July, 16 acres of growing corn were cut. In view of the publicity given to this case, I have prepared, in consultation with my right hon. Friend, a statement which, on account of its length, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Wheatley: Will the Minister say if he had any communication with the Ministry of Food before this took place?

Mr. Williams: I am not at all sure about having had consultation with the Ministry of Food, but I have had several consultations with the Ministry of Supply.

Sir William Darling: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider transferring the aeronautical research station to Scotland, where there is a good deal of non-agricultural land?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with wheat.

Following is the statement:

My Department has been closely consulted by the Ministry of Supply in connection with the acquisition of land north of Bedford required for the establishment of an aeronautical research station. The final determination of boundaries was made last February; but it was then uncertain how soon preparatory work on the land could be started. It was, therefore, decided that rather than allow the land to lie idle at a time of serious food shortage, if there was any chance of being able to take a crop from it, as large an area as possible should be sown to corn despite the risk that some part of the sown area might have to be entered upon before harvest. In the event, it unfortunately proved necessary to cut approximately 16 acres of growing wheat in order to provide access for contractors' machinery and to permit the construction


of roads. My Department agreed to this, as the Ministry of Supply stated that unless substantial progress was made with road construction during the remainder of the dry season this year, their main building plans, scheduled to start after harvest, would have to be postponed until next Spring. The total area of wheat in the fields affected is over 100 acres, no more of which will be cut until ripe. Practically all the wheat cut green has been converted into silage which will be of considerable value next winter for the feeding of dairy stock.

District Committees (Workers' Representation)

Mr. Alpass: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will instruct the new county agricultural committees to include representatives of the agricultural workers on their district committees.

Mr. T. Williams: The county committees are primarily responsible for the appointment of their district committees, but I am advising them to include representatives of agricultural workers or smallholders if suitable men are available.

Mr. Alpass: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that agricultural workers are practically unrepresented on these district committees, and does not he agree that their presence on these committees would tend to smooth working?

Mr. Williams: I have already intimated to the county agricultural committees the advisability of appointing agricultural workers or smallholders, where suitable men are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES FISHING GROUNDS (DUMPED REFUSE)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the fishing industry of the Gravesend fishermen is imperilled by the action of the Port of London in using the lower reaches of the River Thames for dumping refuse which is causing the fishing grounds at Lower Hope to become barren; and whether he will take steps to see that this wartime practice is now ended.

Mr. T. Williams: Representations have been received from fishermen in this area protesting against the continuance of the wartime practice of dumping refuse in the lower reaches of the Thames. I have

now been assured by the authority concerned that the practice will cease shortly when the necessary hoppers become available for the disposal of this refuse at sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (SYRIAN ANTI ZIONIST BOYCOTT)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to Decree No. 273, issued by the Syrian Government on 23rd June, 1946, about the boycott of Zionist goods and providing for the death penalty to be awarded in certain cases of infringement; and whether, in view of the fact that such legislation is in violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter designed to prevent racial discrimination, he will make representations to protect the interests of Palestinian citizens against this decree.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Syrian Law No. 273 of 31st May, 1946, which deals with the boycott of Zionist goods, provides for certain penalties on persons who violate the boycott regulations, but no death penalty is imposed. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in the House, on 13th February, in answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. G. Porter) and Cardiff, Central (Mr. G. Thomas), His Majesty's Government have already expressed to the Syrian Government their strong disapproval of the Arab boycott of Zionist goods.

Mr. Janner: Are not the Syrian Government a member of the United Nations organisation; and is not their action contrary to the charter of the United Nations organisation? Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that U.N.O. does something about it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have made our own representations already. We think that it is contrary to neighbourly conduct and common sense. I think we had better leave it at that for the present.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (OCCUPYING FORCES)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on his demand at the Paris Conference that all the Armed Forces of the. Allies should be evacuated from Austria.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My right hon. Friend did not propose at Paris that the Allied troops in Austria should be forthwith removed. Like the United States delegate, however, he did circulate the draft heads of a Treaty with the Austrian Republic, and, if this Treaty had been made, one of its consequences would have been the withdrawal from the country of all the occupying forces of the Allies. But, as the hon. Member will be aware, there was, to my right hon. Friend's regret, no agreement of the Council of Foreign Ministers at the recent session to proceed with the consideration of an Austrian Treaty.

Professor Savory: Is the Minister aware that in a certain zone the country is being completely eaten up to the verge of being absolutely ruined, and in view of the fact that these people only desire to be friends of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could he not remove all troops immediately?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are, of course, extremely anxious to have an Austrian Treaty as soon as we can get it, and if we can get it, all the Allied troops will be removed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it the case that some reduction is being made now, or will he made, in the strength of our occupying Forces, and, if so, is there to he a parallel in any of the other zones?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think it is common knowledge that a reduction has been made in the number of troops in Austria on the part of all four occupying Powers, but I would not now like to add to that.

Mr. Nutting: Can the Minister give the figures of the Armies of the occupying Powers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think I had better do that now.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS

Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in the recent negotiations in Paris, His Majesty's Government have failed to act on the policy laid down in Article 4 of the Crimea Protocol that it should be accepted as a basis for discussion at the Commission for Reparations that the sum total of reparations payable by Germany should be 20 thousand million dollars, of which half should go to the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the hon. Member has been misinformed about the facts. Article 4 of the Crimea Protocol did not lay down the sum of 20 thousand million dollars as the accepted basis of discussion for the reparations to be paid by Germany. On the contrary, the British delegation to the Crimea Conference formally recorded their view that no figure for German reparation should be mentioned until the Moscow Reparation Commission had considered the matter. In any case His Majesty's Government have accepted no basic agreement about reparation from Germany except that which is contained in the Potsdam Protocol. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said a week ago, my right hon. Friend is now preparing a statement on the subject for circulation to the Governments of France, U.S.A. and Soviet Union.

Mr. Pritt: Is it not a fact that the American and Soviet Delegations did agree in Article 4 of this Protocol to put forward at Moscow as a basis for discussion, the figure of 20 thousand million dollars; and would the right hon. Gentleman see that, as far as possible, public men and the Press do not talk about this 10 thousand million dollars for the Soviet Union as if it were a fantastic invention, and would he make them understand that it is something to which two of the three great Powers agreed as a basis for discussion?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The United States Delegation at the Crimea Conference agreed to it as a basis for discussion, but they made it plain in the meeting at Potsdam that it was only a basis for discussion and that they were not committed to it. In point of fact, the agreement made at Potsdam was not related at all to the figure of 20 thousand million dollars.

Mr. Eden: As tar as His Majesty's Government are concerned, for whom we are alone responsible in this House, will the right hon. Gentleman state that we flatly declined to be committed to anything?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIESTE (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrange-


ments are under contemplation for maintaining the security of the international zone of Trieste; and whether he will advocate the provision of international forces for this purpose.

Mr. Noel-Baker: A Four Power Commission is now meeting in Paris to consider the statute for the Government of the Free Territory of Trieste. Its recommendations will be laid before the Peace Conference. The security of the Territory is one of the most important issues with which the Commission must deal; it would be better for me, therefore, not to make any statement of the views of His Majesty's Government at the present time, but I will, of course, bear the hon. Member's proposal in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL WORKERS' STRIKE, PERSIA

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the estimated loss of oil supplies to His Majesty's Government as a result of the oilworkers' strike in the Anglo-Iranian Company which began on 14th July.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The loss of output incurred by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company through the recent strike will be approximately 360,000 tons. This figure takes into account the time required to bring the Abadan refinery back to full production. Most of the oil from Abadan is used, not by His Majesty's Government, but by the general public in the countries to which it is shipped.

Sir W. Smithers: To what extent were Russian propaganda and intrigue responsible for this trouble?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that arises from this Question, which is only concerned with oil.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have recently been made to the Iranian Government concerning labour conditions in the oilfields of Southern Iran where British interests are involved; and with what result.

Mr. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Government have always made it clear to the Iranian Government that they would welcome an improvement in labour conditions in Iran. They have not relaxed

their efforts in this respect in recent months. I am happy to say that the Iranian Government are now engaged in drawing up regulations which will govern labour conditions in industry throughout the country, and I hope that this may lead to good results. My right hon. Friend has also taken up the question of labour conditions in the oilfields of Southern Iran with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the huge increase in the labour force at Abadan during the war, amounting, I think, to double its size, and the acute difficulty of getting building materials, are not labour conditions in the oilfields in Southern Iran remarkably good?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think they would still bear a good deal of improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (SENTENCE ON M. PASTUHOV)

Mr. Gordon-Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the recent sentencing of Monsieur Pastuhov, a member of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, to five years' imprisonment on a political charge; and, since this is not in accord with the terms of the Armistice Agreement that is still in force in Bulgaria, what steps he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: M. Pastuhov was tried under the Bulgarian law for the Defence of the People's Power for alleged offences against the Bulgarian State. This is a matter of the internal administration of Bulgarian justice in which, under the terms of the Armistice Agreement, the Allied Control Commission is not empowered to intervene. His Majesty's Government have taken note of the punishment imposed on M. Pastuhov, who has for many years been a loyal and courageous member of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, who has given his whole life to trying to secure the liberation of his country from previous tyrannical regimes, and who opposed the Germans during their occupation of Bulgaria. His Majesty's Government deeply regret that the Bulgarian authorities should have thought it right to bring a man with such a record before a special court on a political charge, and that this court should have sentenced him to


prison, although, during the trial, no substantial evidence was brought against him to support the charges which had been made.

Mr. Mack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of the Armistice Agreement do not deny the rights of a properly constituted Bulgarian Court to send one of its nationals to prison on a political charge if found guilty, and that if he instituted impartial inquiries into the judicial system in Bulgaria he would discover that it is as fair as it is in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — DANISH SUBJECTS (BRITISH ARMY)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Danes have been recruited for the British Army; what arrangement between our own and the Danish Government exists for the purpose of the military and other training of Danish subjects; and what agreement or understanding exists between the two Governments in respect of military defence and obligations involved in membership of U.N.O.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With the approval of the Danish Government, 2,500 Danes have been enlisted into the British Army. In answer to a Question by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) on 3rd April my right hon. Friend explained the technical assistance which is being given to the Danish Government by small British Naval, Military and Air Force Missions. The agreements to be made by Members of the United Nations under the Charter for Mutual defence against aggression are still the subject of technical examination by the Military Staff Committee of the Security Council.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from the latter part of the reply that the Danish Government are not expected by the British Government, nor have the British Government attempted at any time to induce the Danish Government, to comply with certain military commitments?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not under the Charter, so far as I am aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECT, FRANCE (DEATH SENTENCE)

Mr. Parker: by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no assistance has been given to Mr. George Dace, a British subject honoured by Lord Montgomery for his help to the Allied Forces, who was condemned to death on Saturday, 20th July, at Dijon for alleged assistance to the Nazis during the German occupation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris satisfied himself that Mr. Dace was provided with legal aid, and that he had adequate opportunity to prepare and conduct his defence. Until Mr. Dace has exhausted his legal remedies, His Majesty's Ambassador cannot properly take any other steps on his behalf, and the question of diplomatic intervention does not, therefore, arise. The Ambassador, however, has been instructed to watch the case very closely. Mr. Dace has a right of appeal, and I think my hon. Friend may be assured that he will exercise this right.

Mr. Parker: How is it then, that despite the relatives' request to the British Consul to intervene to provide assistance to Mr. Dace, no action was taken by the British Consul?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that we have done everything we properly could, under the customs of international relationship.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question Put,

"That the Proceedings on the National Health Service Bill be exempted, at this day's

Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 89.

Division No. 260.
AYES.
[3.31 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett
Pearson, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Perrins, W


Allighan, Garry
Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A. (Wakefield)
Piratin, P.


Alpass, J. H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pritt, D. N.


Attewell, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Austin, H. L.
Guy, W. H.
Randall, H. E.


Ayles, W. H.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Ranger, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hale, Leslie
Rankin, J.


Baird, Capt. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Balfour, A.
Hardy, E. A.
Reeves, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Harris, H. Wilson
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Barstow, P. G.
Harrison, J.
Rhodes, H.


Barton, C.
Hastings, Dr, Somerville
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Battley, J. R.
Haworth, J,
Robens, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Belcher, J. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R.
Sargood, R.


Bing, G. H. C
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Sharp, Lt.Col. G. M.


Binns J.
House, G.
Shurmar, P.


Blackburn, A. R
Hoy, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p't. Exch'ge)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Irving, W. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Snow, Capt. J W


Brown, George (Belper)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Solley, L. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Jones. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sparks, J. A.


Buchanan, G.
Keenan, W.
Stamford, W.


Burke, W. A
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Key, C. W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Byers, Frank F.
Kinley, J.
Stubbs, A. E.


Callaghan, James
Lang, G.
Swingler, S.


Champion. A. J
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Chater, D
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Clitherow, Dr R
Levy, B. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Cluse, W S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Cobb, F. A.
Lipson, D. L.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cocks, F. S
McAdam, W.
Thurtle, E.


Collick, P.
McAllister, G.
Titterington, M. F.


Collindridge, F.
McGhee, H. G.
Tolley, L.


Collins, V. J.
McGovern, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Colman, Miss G M
Mack, J, D.
Usborne, Henry


Comyns, Dr. L.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Wadsworth, G.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)
McLeavy, F.
Walkden, E.


Corlett, Dr. J
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Walker, G. H.


Daggar, G.
Macpherson T. (Romford)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Daines, P.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Mayhew C. P.
Warbey, W. N.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Messer, F.
Watkins, T. E.


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Deer, G.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Diamond, J.
Mortague, F.
Wilkes, L.


Dodds, N. N.
Moody, A. S
Wilkins, W. A.


Driberg, T. E. N,
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Dye, S.
Moyle, A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Edelman, M.
Nally, W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williamson, T.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Willis, E.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wise, Major F. J


Ewart, R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Woodburn, A.


Farthing, W. J.
Orbach, M.
Woods, G. S.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wyatt, Maj. W 


Follick, M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, V. F.


Foot, M. M.
Parker, J.



Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gallacher, W.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushciiffe)
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Osborne, C.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beechman, N. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Boothby, R
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott, Stanley


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Carson, E.
Lennox Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R.


Challen, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Smithers, Sir W


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J, (Moray)


De la Bère, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'r, S.)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Macpherson, Maj. H. (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Melior, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W- S. (Cirencester)



George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholm[...]


Grimston, R. V.
Nutting, Anthony



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 6, Clause 11, page 13, line 34, Clauses 16, 21, 38, 39, 48, 54 and in respect of the new Clause (Provision of residential accommodation for staff) standing on the Notice Paper in my name.
It is hardly necessary for me to give detailed reasons for this Motion for re-committal of the Bill, because I think that re-committal is necessary for the purposes of the Government and also for the purposes of the Opposition, since I propose to accept the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). If more detailed information is necessary I shall be glad to give it, but I think it is not necessary in the circumstances.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add:
 and in respect of the new Clauses (Maintenance of hospitals before transfer, and (Main-

tenance of services provided by voluntary organisations) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. willink.
I cannot dissent from the view that some recommittal is necessary. There are one or two of these matters that I think we might have dealt with in the Standing Committee, but I know that everything has been so rushed that one can hardly blame the Minister for not having completed his consultations before the end of the Committee stage. Those whom we must blame are those who compelled us to rush the thing so much, and no doubt that is not the Minister, but rather the Leader of the House. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would accept the Amendment, because the points raised by it have been left in the air, and we shall be able to have a much better discussion in Committee than we should on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Mr. Sparks: Does this mean that all other Amendments and new Clauses, other than those specified in the Motion, will not be discussed?

Mr. Speaker: These Clauses are dealt with on the Committee stage again. The. other Amendments remain on the Order Paper as they are.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of hospitals to the Minister.)

3.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out:
purposes of those hospitals or any of them,
and to insert:
purpose of providing hospital accommodation for persons in their area.
This Amendment is designed to cover the situation with regard to the liabilities of local authorities which the present wording does not secure shall be transferred to the Minister. The liabilities, for instance, are those in connection with loans which local authorities have entered into for the purpose of providing moneys either to lend or to give to voluntary hospitals to enable them to extend their services. The liabilities with regard to these loans we consider as something which should be transferred to the Minister, and the purpose of the Amendment is to secure that transfer.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We have been told about the liabilities to be transferred, but we have not been told what assets are to be transferred. As I understand the Amendment, it widens the class of assets which will be transferred from local authorities to the Minister, and I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us any information as to any further assets that will be covered, by this widened form of words.

Mr. Key: The assets are included in the buildings and services of the voluntary hospitals which have been improved and extended as a result of the advances which the local authorities have made to the voluntary hospital governors concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out "and," and to insert:
(d) for the transfer to and vesting in the Minister of interests held solely for the purposes of two or more voluntary hospitals to which this Section applies in, premises used for the purposes of those hospitals, and of property and liabilities which would, if the interests were held and the premises used solely for the purposes of one such hospital,

be transferred to the Minister under Subsection (1) of this Section or apportioned to him under the foregoing provisions of this Subsection; and.
This Amendment is designed to meet the position in connection with voluntary hospitals two or more of which may join together for the purpose of providing an institution for common user, such, for instance, as a school for nurses, which may have been provided by two or three voluntary hospitals. As Clause 6 is drafted at present, these joint premises would not fall to be transferred to the Minister at the time of the transference under the general hospitals scheme. Of course, these are part and parcel of the hospital service, and therefore, it is necessary to secure that they shall be transferred with the hospitals at the normal time.

Mr. Reid: I wonder whether these words are not too wide for the purpose which the Government have in view. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, under Clause 6 (1) there are transferred, not only things belonging to the governing body of a hospital, but also assets held by trustees solely for the purposes of a hospital. We are now to widen that to include all assets held by trustees for the purposes of a number of hospitals. That, I take it, will be the effect of the Amendment. There is a very large number of funds held by trustees. I do not know the precise terms of their trust deeds, but I suspect that some of them, at least, may hold their funds solely for the purposes of assisting hospitals, and for no other purpose. Therefore, I am a little apprehensive as to whether this widened form of words does not bring in—I think contrary to the Minister's intention—those funds which are held by trustees solely for the purpose of distributing the income of them among a large number of hospitals. I do not think that can be the intention of the Minister. I hope he will tell us that it is not his intention, and if so, perhaps he would be good enough to look at the words again to see whether they do not go beyond what he wants. I ask the Minister, first, whether it is his intention to take any part of the assets of these large trusts, which hold millions of pounds for the benefit of hospitals, and if it is not his intention to take any part of those assets, will be look at the wording again to see that those assets are not endangered?

Mr. Bevan: In so far as they are endowments, of course, they would be involved in the transfer to the Endowment Fund, but otherwise not. If the language goes rather wide, I will certainly have a look at it.

Mr. Reid: Do I understand that there is no intention to take any part of the property, assets or endowments held by these large trusts which, in fact, give money to a great number of hospitals?

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the wording he will see that it says "premises ".

Mr. Reid: It says a great deal more than that—it mentions property and liability. Property will include all kinds of things, and I am not at all clear what the exclusion of the endowments in line 21 on page 4 amounts to when read with this new Subsection. I have found the drafting rather obscure and difficult and, therefore, I have not raised the question of drafting. What I want to know is the right hon. Gentleman's intention. If he will tell us quite specifically, that he does not want to touch any part of the funds, buildings, or property of any of these large trusts, then we can leave it with confidence to him and his advisers to see that that is carried out. I would like a specific assurance that that is his intention.

Mr. Bevan: That is the intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Regional Hospital Boards, Hospital Management Committees, and Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, to leave out Subsection (8), and to insert:
(8) Where after the appointed day—

(a) any of the areas for which Regional Hospital Boards are constituted are varied, whether or not such variation involves the constitution 'of a new Board or the termination of the functions of an existing Board;
(b) a new scheme is made under Subsection (4) of this Section involving the appointment of a new Hospital Management Committee or the termination of the functions of an existing Committee or any variation in the grouping of hospitals managed by such Committees; or
(c) a new teaching hospital is designated or the designation of a teaching hospital is

revoked, or any hospital is included in or excluded from a group of hospitals so designated;
the Minister may by order make provision for any supplementary and incidental matters for which it appears to him to he necessary or expedient to provide, and in particular—

(i) for the transfer and compensation of officers, and the transfer of property and liabilities;
(ii) for making a new apportionment or an adjustment, in accordance with regulations made under Subsection (5) of Section seven of this Act, of the shares of Regional Hospital Boards and Hospital Management Committees in the capital value of the Hospital Endowments Fund; and
(iii) in a case to which paragraph (c) of this Subsection applies, for requiring capital assets to be transferred from the said Fund to the Board of Governors of a teaching hospital, or, as the case may be, from any such Board to the said Fund."
During the work of administering this hospital service there may arise the question of the provision of new hospitals, the closing down of existing hospitals and the allocation to one hospital management group, of a hospital in some other hospital group. For instance, it might be a question of promoting a particular hospital to be designated as a teaching hospital. A great number of processes will arise out of the ordinary administration, and these alterations might necessitate variations in the areas of administration of the Regional Hospital Board or of the hospital management committee or of a hoard of governors of a teaching hospital. In order that these may be readily carried out we find it necessary to make this alteration.
The Amendment will give the Minister the necessary power to make such changes as will involve, for instance, the transfer and compensation of officers of the particular institutions concerned together with the transfer of the property and liabilities. There will be the re-apportionment of the Hospital Endowments Fund as well as such things as the transfer of capital assets between the fond and the boards of governors in cases where new teaching hospitals are designated. In order that this may be done we desire the new Subsection. We are asking that certain powers under Subsection (8) as it stands shall be omitted, because they give a certain amount of trouble. For the reassurance of hon. Members, I might say that this Amendment will not alter in any way the position which the Minister accepted in Committee that the fixing of the areas of the Regional Boards should be done by


order which will be laid before Parliament. The same thing will apply to the alteration of the areas of the Regional Boards, and there is an Amendment on the Order Paper for discussion later which will secure that this is done.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Research, 9 & 10 Geo. 5. C. 21.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, after "Board," to insert "and a Hospital Management Committee."
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which we gave in Committee to extend the powers and functions of the hospital management committees and gives them the power of carrying out research. There are other Amendments on the Order Paper for discussion later which will also extend the powers of these management committees.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Alan Herbert: May I say, as briefly as possible, that this Clause, as amended, will leave a highly unsatisfactory situation so far as the universities are concerned? At the urgent request of the Vice-Chancellors and the medical faculties of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, a series of Amendments was put down in Committee about research and teaching but those Amendments, unfortunately, were not called. Still more unfortunately an Amendment put down for consideration on the Report stage will, I understand, be out of Order, but for that we must be responsible. Nevertheless, in the hope that there may be some remedy, may I mention the point of view of the universities? This is a Clause concerning research which, with teaching, is the primary function of the universities. There is no reference to the universities in the Clause, although I must give all honour and credit to the Minister for mentioning them in the Bill as much as he has. Naturally, the universities by no means object to the Regional Hospital Board or the hospital management committee having powers

with regard to research, but as regards the teaching hospitals they feel, as the expert authority on research and teaching, that there should be a different arrangement; because they are the authority who know how research is to be done, with what and by whom. They envisage, under an Amendment which may or may not be called, a kind of working partnership between the university and the teaching hospital, the teaching hospital, naturally, without interference running its own affairs, but the university having the primary say in matters of research, the teaching officers also being part of the hospital machinery so far as administration of affairs is concerned and so on. Perhaps this is not the proper time for me to develop the instructive suggestion of the universities, but, if there is no remedy, the universities take the most serious view of this and have, in fact, said to me that it is vital to the whole future of medical research.

Mr. Bevan: This matter has been discussed, and I think the position has been made perfectly clear, but I understand the hon. Member will have further opportunities of raising the whole question on the Report stage.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I should like to support the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert). I do not think the Committee realise how completely research is dependent upon teaching hospitals. The last 100 years has shown that research counts upon the teaching hospitals in increasing measure, and they have been responsible for the tremendous advances in medicine made during the war years.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but we cannot discuss further the question of the universities in relation to research. I understood that the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) is merely raising, as an objection to the Clause as it appears before us, the fact that it contained insufficient provision for the universities. There cannot at this point in the Bill be a plea for the universities.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Can I not argue the point that the teaching hospitals are urgently concerned?

The Chairman: There may be other opportunities, but the hon. Member cannot develop that argument at this point.

Mr. Piekthorn: I am sorry I have not quite followed, but that is no one's fault except my own. The right hon. Gentleman said that there might be later opportunities but I would point out, with respect, that in fact that is not within the right hon. Gentleman's control. I do not wish to elaborate the argument at all, but I think it is a little hard if we may not indicate what seems, on the face of it, the fact that the universities, as teaching institutions, and being concerned with the matter in that sort of way, might reasonably be expected to have more to do with research. If we could be sure that it is to be considered at a later stage, that would be the end of it for the present.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The right of the universities to conduct research is not affected by the Amendment before the Committee, but the right of the management committees to conduct research.

Mr. Pickthorn: Are we not discussing the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"?

Mr. Bevan: We are on the Amendment, are we not?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Bevan: The universities are in an entirely different position. They have rights to conduct research. We do not desire to dictate to universities. They can conduct research in their own right, and no one desires to interfere with them. That point does not arise now.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does it arise at some other stage?

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2I.—(Health Centres.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 19, line i6, to leave out "or," and to insert:
(e) for the provision of the services of specialists or other services provided for outpatients under Part II of this Act; or.
The purpose of the Amendment is to meet a point raised in Committee. It was pointed out that the activities of the

health centres were too restricted because they did not make provision for services connected with the outpatient work of the hospitals, and for the specialist services. The Amendment is designed to secure that health centres provided by local health authorities may be used for specialist and other purposes connected with outpatient work.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The Amendment will be a material improvement. It astonishes me that the Government did not think of it before, and that it was necessary for as to drag it out of them. It might have been put in during the Committee stage. But for tins Amendment there would be a very great hole in the Bill. It would have been impossible for health centres to be used for the services of specialists. When a fundamental point like this is not included in the Bill and is not accepted by the Government during the Committee stage, a rather lurid light is thrown on the lack of preparation with which the Bill was presented.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. All that we are doing is to make dear what we considered were the powers under the Bill. I think I made it clear in the Committee that it is the intention that specialists should move quite freely, not only to health centres but also to the homes of patients who require specialist attention. We want not only that specialists may visit health centres, but to make it clear that there is an obligation under the Bill to provide domiciliary specialist services, where they are necessary. Therefore, the criticisms and admonitions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are entirely unnecessary. All we are doing is to try to make clear what was ambiguous in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman but was clear to everybody else.

Mr. Reid: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will consult any of his hon. Friends who are accustomed to dealing with Acts of Parliament he will find that he has only a very shadowy case.

Mr. Messer: I would call the attention of the Committee to the provisions of Subsection (1) of Clause 38, which states:
It shall be the duty of every Executive Council…to make…arrangements with medical practitioners for the provision by them as from the appointed day, whether at a health centre or otherwise, of personal medical


services for all persons in the area who wish to take advantage of the arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 38.—(Arrangements for pharmaceutical services.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 32, line 43, after the first "services," to insert:
and of prescribed drugs and medicines to all persons in the area who are receiving general dental services.
Again, this is an Amendment arising out of the consideration in Committee. It is designed to make clear that there will be provision, according to regulations made by the Minister, for drugs and medicines in connection with dental services as well as with other services in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 7, after "section," insert:
and to enable any person receiving genera/ dental services to obtain prescribed drugs and medicines, if ordered by the dental practitioner rendering those services, from any persons with whom such arrangements have been made."—[Mr. Key.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 39.—(Persons authorised to provide pharmaceutical services.)

Amendment made: In page 33, line 20, after "practitioner," insert "or dental practitioner."—[Mr. Key.]

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 33, line 22, at the end, to insert: "or general dental services."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I would like an assurance that the regulations will deal with the point I am now going to present. It is not uncommon—I have had it happen to me—that a dentist will provide some form of drug for his patient to take away, to stop bleeding or pain. Upon a strict reading of the Clause I think he would not now be allowed to do that, because he has agreed not to provide pharmaceutical services. I hope that the Minister will see that reasonable provision is put in so as not to insist upon people going to chemists for things they might easily get, in the circumstances, from the dentist himself.

Mr. Key: Yes, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall watch that point, and try to make provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 48.—(Provision of courses for medical and dental practitioners.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 39, line 32, to leave out "medical and dental".
Again this Amendment arises out of consideration in Committee. It gives the Minister power to arrange for refresher courses for pharmacists and opticians and other people who are employed, as well as doctors and dentists. My right hon. Friend gave an undertaking in Committee that this matter would be looked into. The Amendment has been put down as a result. It may be noted that the Clause relates only to people mentioned in Part IV. For others, there is already in force provision for them to follow the usual practice whenever they allow their employees to go away on refresher courses, and to continue to pay salaries and expenses for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 39, line 33, leave out from "providing," to "to," in line 34, and insert:
any services under this Part of this Act.

In line 35, leave out "medical or dental," and insert "professional."

In line 38, leave out "medical or dental," and insert such."—[Mr. Key.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 54.—(Payments to Regional Hospital Boards, Boards of Governors, Executive Councils and other bodies.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 45, line 8, to leave out from "Any," to "to," in line 9, and to insert:
payments made under regulations in respect of any loss of remunerative time or any travelling or subsistence expenses.
This Amendment is consequential upon Amendments made in Committee to the First, Third and Fifth Schedules in which


provision was made for the payment of loss of remunerative time to members of the Central Health Services Council, Advisory Committees, Regional Boards, hospital management committees and so on. This Amendment gives the necessary power to make payment from the Exchequer in cases outlined in those Schedules.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: By the time we reached this part of the Bill upstairs, it was the 19th day in Committee and we were running along very quickly. I am not sure that we were quite at one on this point. The Minister said, and we accepted it, that next year he hoped to have legislative sanction on a broad basis for paying members of all kinds of local government bodies for loss of remunerative time, and he wanted this to be in the Bill in order that there would be power to marry the two schemes so that the health scheme could be brought into line with the general policy of Parliament as it might be determined next year. That seemed reasonable, but I asked the Minister a question and I am not sure whether he wants to stand by his answer. I hope not, but if he does, I hope he will justify it. I asked the Minister whether he would agree not to introduce this new principle of payment for loss of remunerative time with regard to members of his new health bodies, until the general principles had been settled by Parliament. That seemed the proper way to proceed. Certainly let him take power in the Bill to bring the arrangements for members of committees set up by the Bill, into line with the general local authority arrangements to be settled by this House when the time comes. But I do not think the Minister can really want to promulgate his system of payment for loss of remunerative time before the matter has been determined by this House on a broad basis. We were rather rushed at that period, and I am not sure whether the Minister meant that he wanted to do that or not, but I hope that he will now say that, if we give him this power, he will not try to introduce a new system of this kind before general legislation has been approved by Parliament—I do not say, reached the stage of Royal Assent—but that he will not start on his own, before it is clear what Parliament wants done. If the Minister will say that, I see no objection to this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Member, upon reflection, would not, I think, press me to give such an undertaking. It would be my aim to get the principles underlying payment for loss of remunerative time discussed and approved by Parliament, before they were operated under this scheme, but it may be impracticable to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it would be very wrong of me to commit myself to such a principle, although, as I said, it would be my intention. At any rate, it is always within the power of the Opposition and of any hon. Member of this House to insist on a Parliamentary discussion on such a matter, because a Prayer can be put down. However, I assure hon. Members that I am not now seeking an escape in this matter, because I have already practically appointed, the committee to consider this matter. I have asked them to expedite their examination of this problem, and I hope I shall get the report fairly quickly. It is not a complicated question, and therefore there is no reason why we should not have the report fairly quickly.
I have said before, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree, that it is necessary to get these Regional Boards into existence as soon as possible. They have to plan their hospital services long before the date for the operation of the scheme. It would, therefore, be most improper if very many people with long experience of hospital administration and local government organisation were unable to serve upon these boards because they could not afford to do so. If I gave so strict an undertaking as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks, I might deny to all of us the valuable services of many people at the beginning of the scheme when most of the work will fall on the Regional Board. Later, when the Regional Boards have become established, their administration will be comparatively simple and make less call on the services of the members, but at the beginning, when the whole hospital organisation in the area has to be planned, when the relationship between the management committees and the Regional Board will be determined and when the members will have to advise upon the creation of management committees, I want to allow the committee to avail itself of the services of members with a rich and valuable experience in


all classes of the community. Poor people ought not to be denied the opportunity of giving this service, because they would lose by doing so.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Reid: I realise the strength of the Minister's argument. On the other hand, he will agree that it would be a very unfortunate thing if the principles of this method of payment had to be discussed in this House for the first time on a Prayer, because he is as well aware as any of us of the severe limitations under which such a discussion suffers.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated assent.

Mr. Reid: We have had many examples of that in recent times. That would be all right if it were a non-controversial matter, but to raise a controversy on a Prayer, as a first stage in this new, departure, would be extremely unfortunate. I do not propose, in view of what the Minister has said, to press this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of residential accommodation for staff.)

A local health authority may provide, or may improve or furnish, residential accommodation for officers employed by them for the purposes of any of their functions as a local health authority, or for officers employed by a voluntary organisation for the purposes of any services provided under Part III of this Act.—[Mr. Key.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Clause 21 (3) enables living accommodation for people who are employed in connection with the health centres to be provided by the local authorities. We feel strongly that it is desirable that this power should be extended particularly to permit the provision of accommodation for the district nurse and the midwife serving in country areas. This does not, in reality, introduce any new principle, because there is at present a power of this character which belongs to the hospital authorities to provide accommodation for hospital staffs under Section 183 of the Public Health Act, 1936. We feel that it is very necessary, particularly in the country areas, that the power to provide this accommodation should be extended beyond the health centres.

Mr. Reid: I am very glad that the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary have, at last, been converted to the principle of the tied cottage, and I hope that he will have consultations on this subject with some of his colleagues. However, I am not sure that this is the best form of tied cottage. We have to look at the background and the situation in which we are today, where new houses are rare things. Now in so far as one gives powers to local authorities to plant their employees in nice new houses, these employees are given a preference. I have always thought, and I still think, that it is the right thing, when you have an employee of anybody, public or private, who has to live near his work that he should have a preference. Indeed, he should have a house provided in any case, but this Clause goes far beyond that. There was in, the. Bill originally a perfectly proper provision that accommodation, health centres, and so on, could be provided for employees. They had to live at their work, and it was right, but this goes further. It gives all local authority health servants a particular right to a house, or at least something that they will think is a right to a house. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me whether other local authority servants have a similar right, because I can see a certain amount of dissatisfaction if one particular class of local authority servants have these rights and others do not. I can see equal ground for dissatisfaction if the local authority servants under this Bill get preferential treatment whereas the Minister's servants —the officers of the Regional Boards and so on—do not. I do not want to prevent anyone having a house except in so far as it prevents others, who are perhaps more deserving, from coming in first, but I venture to think that the Minister is introducing a little potential discord at this point as between servants of local authorities and servants of his own administrative bodies. Could he give me some information as to whether this power occurs elsewhere on a widespread scale, or whether this is something new?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would like to join my right hon. and learned Friend in congratulating the Minister on adopting the principle of the tied cottage, though I feel that this particular form of tying has proceeded a very long way. According to the Clause you


can not only provide a house, but you can "improve" or "furnish" a house, and the entire equivalent of a house can be put into an existing one. That needs a little explanation. After all, a house these days is a tremendously strong lure, and to hold out this lure in the form set out in this Clause seems a little unusual. It goes really even further than that, for at the end of the Clause we see the words:
or for officers employed by a voluntary organisation for the purposes of any services provided under Part III of this Act.
When we look at Part III, we can see that that stretches it pretty wide. What are the voluntary organisations to which this would apply? Does it include the leader of the St. John Ambulance or the Red Cross or the W.V.S. or the Women's Institute? The fact that these voluntary organisations are linked up may or may not be a good thing. I am inclined to think it is a good thing in principle, but when it comes to supplying furnishings and improving houses for officers of voluntary organisations who volunteer their services to assist in a State organisation, where are we? They will have relations, they will have friends. One may say, "I have a family of 12. I cannot possibly take on this job, although I am a thunderingly good specialist." Another may say, "I am a frightfully good worker in the W.V.S. but I have to house all my sister's children and, in order to do that, I must have a house which will accommodate them all." I may be exaggerating the case, but that is what the words on the Paper say.

Mr. Bevan: I may perhaps be able to shorten the discussions if I speak at once, because there are far meatier subjects coming later, on which hon. Gentlemen can exercise their imaginations. This is a perfectly innocent Amendment, and I am certain that if hon. Gentlemen press their questions too far, they will get themselves into trouble with their own colleagues. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said that I was creating a new form of tied cottage. As I have explained in other places, the real defect of a tied cottage, consists in the fact of the absence of other accommodation in the area, and that difficulty we are in process of solving. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are already building far more houses in the rural districts, with

which this Clause is concerned, than hon. Members built in many years. I think hon. Members opposite had better not press their questions too far, because the purpose of these powers is particularly to provide cottages in the rural areas for district nurses or midwives. Now do hon. Gentlemen not want us to do that? The fact of the matter is that, if we are to provide people in scattered areas, where they have not proper access to hospital facilities, with a proper service, we must make available nurses and midwives. If we are to do that, we must provide them with accommodation.
To "improve" or "furnish," means that if you have hold of a cottage which may not be suitable in itself, you can make it suitable by improving it, and you can furnish it properly for the purposes which these people will be discharging. So far from there being any sinister purpose behind the Amendment, it is of the most benevolent intention. Furthermore, we are not even taking new powers, because these powers are already in existence. Local authorities, including county councils, at present have the power to house hospital staffs, and all we are really doing is transferring their powers to the National Health Service, and extending the powers in respect of the accommodation of additional services, which we are hoping to give to the rural population.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister must take note of the fact that these hungry Tories are ready to swallow any worm, no matter how miserable it may be; and if there is no worm, they will take a shark. I was up on my feet ——

Sir Patrick Hannon: Major Milner, on a point of Order. May I protest against the statement that we are hungry, notwithstanding the fact that today is the first day of bread rationing?

Mr. Gallacher: The Tories are very hungry for office. They cannot understand why they are out, but they will get accustomed to it. They cannot realise what the elector has done. I was going to say right at the beginning, if I had been successful in catching your eye, Major Milner, that this is not the same as a tied cottage. It is one thing to give the local authority or the Regional Board the right to house officials; it is another and en-


tirely different thing to give them the right to evict if the officials happen to leave the job. There is nothing in this Clause that gives them the right to throw these people out. Any doctor or dentist may take a job with the National Health Service and may be given a house. He may then decide to contract out, and someone else will take his place. It will be the duty of the local authority to find a house for that new man. The difficulty under Tory rule was that people could not get houses, and were condemned to live under the most unspeakable conditions, but now the housing problem is to be solved—[Laughter]. There is no question about that. There is no danger of any Tory getting up a petition on the housing question.

4.30 p.m.

The Chairman: That is not the question under discussion.

Mr. Gallacher: The solving of the housing problem, and the building of houses, will make it possible for local authorities to house those engaged in the National Health Service. This is not a question of a tied cottage. We shall oppose the tied cottage at every opportunity, no matter from what direction the proposal is put forward.

Mr. David Eccles: I must confess that I came here to bless this Clause. I had my mind specially on the word "improve." I thought it admirable that the right hon. Gentleman should go in for reconditioning on his own, when he is preventing all of us from reconditioning farm workers' cottages.

Mr. Bevan: No one is stopping reconditioning. We do not want to subsidise it, that is all.

Mr. Eccles: Reconditioning is the cheapest way of getting a good cottage for many farm workers. Surely, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is wrong? The intention of the Minister is to make these houses service houses. If he does not do that, he will have an infinite number of houses to build, because every time anyone leaves the employment of a local authority and says' he wishes to stay in the house which has been provided, the whole thing will have to be done over again. Is not the intention only to let to those in the employment of the local

authority, and if they leave that employment, they must give up the cottage?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I certainly did not intend anything sinister. What I am trying to get at is a closer definition, as this Clause is so very wide and vague. There is the point which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) about the employee who loses his job and does not continue to work for the local authority. Are not the words "a voluntary organisation" a little wide? I should have thought that could be defined a little more closely. We do not wish to see a multiplicity of voluntary organisations, although there are different types of organisation for different types of work. There is an admirable one which we could all name.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is surely trying to find something that is not there. I respectfully suggest that he should examine the Bill. The local health authority must submit to the Minister the kind of voluntary organisation it proposes to use. Houses can be provided only for the officers of those voluntary organisations. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have pressed for the employment of these voluntary organisations, somewhat to the discomfort of hon. Members on this side. Therefore, I should advise the hon. Member not to press that part of the problem too far.

Orr-Ewing: If the words in the new Clause come under the general definition, that entirely meets the point.

Mr. McKie: The Minister accused my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) of trying to find things which were not in the Clause. Let me assure him that I am doing nothing of the kind in the point which I wish to raise. It should be made clear that these houses should only be let to persons employed by the local authority, large or small. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) seems to see something sinister in the fears expressed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. There is nothing of the kind.
I know of a case where a local health service is being very much inconvenienced by this kind of thing. It is true that it is in Scotland, but that does not prevent


me raising the matter now, because a similar Health Bill will probably be introduced next Session in respect of Scotland. In this case a hoes: was taken by a local nursing association from a landlord—I suppose that will please hon. Members opposite—simply in order to help to carry on the work of the association. The nurse to whom it was originally let, obtained another similar post in another part of Scotland. She sublet the house. It is true that the local nursing association was not as vigilant as it might have been, but I am putting this forward as a kind of case which might arise. The local nursing association allowed the new nurse to take on the house which had been occupied by the former nurse on a subletting. Things went on all right for six months, or a year, and then the local nurse, still in her job provided by the local authority—and as it happens she had another house of her own in another part of Scotland—decided to give notice to the nurse formerly employed by the local authority. The whole case is now under decision by the court. That is the kind of thing we wish to avoid in the future. I ask the Minister to say in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) whether or not the houses will be devoted solely by the local health authorities to the purposes of providing for those employed by them, and that in no case will such a position as I have endeavoured to outline, arise.

Mr. Bevan: I could not possibly give such an undertaking. It is really a matter for the local health authority concerned. As the scheme will start from April, 1948, I hope that, with the valuable assistance of hon. Members opposite, the housing situation will have been alleviated, and that these difficulties will not arise, In any case, I could not give such an undertaking, because it would impose frightful limitations on the local health authority. It might be impossible to get a person out of a house immediately, and there might be another house which the authority could use temporarily for that purpose. We do not want to put local authorities into straitjackets. We want to enable them to get on with the work.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Maintenance of hospitals before transfer.)

(1) At any time after a Regional Hospital Board has been constituted the governing body of any voluntary hospital in the area of that Board may represent to the Board that it is unable to maintain the existing services of that hospital out of its income without financial assistance and the Board, after such inquiry as it thinks necessary, shall determine whether such financial assistance is required, and shall pay to the governing body such sums, if any, as it shall find to be necessary for the said purpose.

(2) If any Regional Hospital Board is satisfied that the services rendered by any hospital ought immediately to be expanded or developed, the Board may make such payment as it may think fit to the governing body or local authority concerned subject to 'such conditions as it may determine.—[Commander Maitland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Commander Maitland: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is simple. Its object is to assist voluntary hospitals during the difficult time through which they will go after the passing of the Act, and before the appointed day. In commending the Clause to the Committee, I would point out that the time is now drawing closer when the Bill will become an Act of Parliament. We shall have to forget all our past arguments, and our strenuous efforts to make the Bill a better one. We shall have to put everything we have into extracting the last ounce of benefit from the Bill for the patient. I ask the Committee to approach this Clause in no partisan spirit, but to regard it merely as a bridge to carry us over the very difficult period ahead.
I well remember when I was serving my apprenticeship in local government, being very irritated by Members of Parliament when new Acts were passed. It seemed to me most unfair of them to take all the credit for the work they had done and the tremendous effort they had made, when I found the clerk, the surveyor, and myself with wet towels round our heads trying to put the new Act into practice and effect in the district where we had to administer it. It is for this reason that I am most anxious to try to see that the people who are destined to make this Bill a reality shall, when they take over, find a healthy organisation, eager for change, and not a starved and listless organisation which has suffered more in its last 18 months


than probably at any other time during its career.
The subject which this Clause covers has been raised from time to time during the proceedings on the Bill. It was raised during the Second Reading by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. D. Renton) and myself, and by many other Members. It was raised in the Standing Committee, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) will remember, in order and out of order, whenever we could. If I may say so without any offence to the Minister, I personally regard him as a tiger, and I may say that I admire him and like him for that attitude. But it is curious that whenever we managed to bring the tiger to the water, we were absolutely unable to make him drink. He changed, and I say this without any offence, from a tiger into a barnyard hen. All he did was to cluck at us that there were difficulties in the way, that there were practical difficulties, and that he hoped the voluntary organisations would go on. If a Minister is not there to solve practical difficulties I cannot quite understand why he is there. Therefore, this Clause has been put down to make it clear that we seek to place in the hands of the Minister the power, and on his shoulders the responsibility, to ensure that where he is satisfied that the need exists, no hospital shall be prevented, by lack of finance, from maintaining its efficiency or making steady progress.
In the Committee we on this side, and I think also Members on the other side, asked for powers to be delegated to organisations or committees closer to the patients themselves. On every occasion, the Minister, possibly rightly, resisted that. His argument was always the same. He maintained that as his was the responsibility so the power should rest in his hands. That is quite a good argument, but I think that the reverse is also true, and that where the power rests it is important that the responsibility should rest also. That is the object we have in bringing this Clause forward. We were also told, and here I heartily agree, that we must consider the interests of the patient as paramount throughout. It is inevitable that any great national Measure of this sort must uproot and upset the existing organisation. It must, in fact, create uncertainty in the minds of the committees who have to manage the hospitals and it

is, of course, on the efficient management of the hospitals that the comfort of the patient ultimately depends. Uncertainty is often the father of inefficiency, and by this Clause we seek to remove, as far as the financial aspect is concerned, the uncertainty which undoubtedly exists in the minds of those who are responsible for managing voluntary hospitals today.
4.45 P.m.
In conclusion, I would say that I am perfectly certain that it always pays to tell the British people exactly where they stand. If the Minister finds himself able, as I hope he will, to accept this Clause, I do not think that there will be any falling off of subscriptions or assistance from voluntary sources in the interim period, but rather the reverse. I think that when the committees know exactly where they are, they will set to and keep themselves going in a far more efficient way than they would if they were left in any doubt. That will mean that they will be able to turn over their endowments, in due course, with the capital untouched, not frittered away in day to day expenses. That is something which we all very much desire. What a tragic thing it would be if, after all the work that we in the House and in Committee have done on this Bill, the first effects were to be that the hospital services available for the sick people of this country suffered. That would be terrible. It would be almost as bad if they stood still, if they marked time, because service to the sick must proceed on an ever advancing scale. We cannot afford in this year of grace to stand still. We have to go ahead. We want to see benefits derived immediately from the great scientific discoveries which are perhaps the only beneficial effect of a great war. I suggest that we cannot allow to go out from Parliament a Measure which might hold still the hospital services of this country. I, therefore, commend this new Clause to the Committee with some confidence.

Sir P. Hannon: It seems to me that the appeal made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastie (Commander Maitland) to the Minister is irresistible. I had not the privilege to be a Member of the Standing Committee, and I would be very glad to know what the Minister has done, what machinery he proposes to establish, to maintain these hospitals in full efficiency in the conduct of their affairs, especially in the interests


of the poor, in the interim period. The plea of my hon. and gallant Friend is based on common sense, and I feel that the Minister ought to provide machinery by which the voluntary hospitals would he protected against the financial misfortunes that might attach to them

Mr. Bevan: As has been mentioned, this principle was discussed in the Standing Committee, and I am afraid that I can give no other reply today than that which I then gave. I, myself, share the anxieties and desires of those who have put down this Clause, but I am convinced that in moving it, they have done a disservice to their own desires. It is true that in the meantime, between now and the taking over of the hospitals, there is a period—not of uncertainty. There is, obviously, a period of certainty, because hospitals are to be taken over from a certain date. But as the hospitals will become a State charge from that date, it will be rather more difficult than before to collect voluntary contributions. But so far from that leading to a diminution of activity in collecting voluntary contributions. there should be increased exertions, because to the extent that the voluntary hospitals fail to obtain money to carry on in the meantime, they will have less free money at their disposal when the new scheme is established. Therefore, I have previously made, and I again make an appeal to everybody concerned with voluntary hospitals, to maintain their interest and their contributions towards the voluntary hospitals in the meantime.

Commander Maitland: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had done a disservice. May I ask him to define exactly what it is?

Mr. Bevan: I was about to do so. The committees of voluntary hospitals are not at the moment appointed under any of the principles of the National Health scheme. They are, in many respects, self-appointed persons. What does the hon. and gallant Member suggest here? Does he suggest that I should give a blank cheque to self-appointed people?

Commander Maitland: No.

Mr. Bevan: These bodies which are voluntary, self-governing bodies should maintain their exertions in the intervening period. If, owing to exceptional circumstances, they find it impossible to carry on

with the activities of the hospital, they should come to me, but in the meantime they should do their best to carry on.

Commander Maitland: Is the Minister accepting the new Clause?

Mr. Bevan: No, I am not. It does not even satisfy the purpose the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. He talks about the Regional Hospital Boards. The Regional Hospital Boards are not the bodies to deal with the difficulties of hospitals during the intervening period. The person to deal with those difficulties is the Minister and not the Board. In fact, they will have their difficulties. I would not want to put this additional task upon them. I am certain that all that would happen would be that hospital authorities would become financially irresponsible. I am astonished at hon. Members opposite. If a hospital management committee, by not exerting itself in its customary way, found itself falling heavily into arrears and unable to obtain credit, and knew very well it could go to the Minister or to the Regional Hospital Board and obtain money, then at once we would have the beginning of slackness and irresponsibility among the voluntary hospital authorities. It is no good an hon. Member saying, "Oh, no;" because in fact one of the cardinal principles of this House——

Mr. Sidney Marshall: Mr. Sidney Marshall (Sutton and Cheam) rose——

Mr. Bevan: Permit me to finish. I could not possibly accept the view that I must pump out public money to any hospital which finds itself, under any circumstances, in financial difficulties. Hon. Members are now reversing the argument we have heard before. In the past they have extolled the virtues of the voluntary hospital system and the advantages of private generosity. Now they are asking us to take over financial responsibility for the voluntary hospitals before we have taken over the management of the voluntary hospitals. That is a situation which I cannot possibly accept. I assure hon. Members opposite that from my information, the voluntary hospital organisations are dismayed by this Clause. They hold the view that it is most unfortunate, because it would have the effect at once of slackening the efforts of the organisations concerned with obtaining funds for voluntary hospitals. I am convinced that those who are in charge


of voluntary hospitals are so dedicated to the work that they have in hand that they will do their very utmost to carry on the hospitals under their management. Where they find themselves in such difficulties that the services cannot be maintained, then they must come to me for assistance.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I do not think the Minister can deny that the result of this Bill will be to make it infinitely more difficult to raise funds for voluntary hospitals. I happened to be in Brighton when people were trying to raise funds for the local hospital. Time after time the ladies who had the collecting boxes were asked, "What is to happen to these funds? Are these funds to be taken by the Minister, or are they going to go to the voluntary hospitals?" I am merely pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman has created a great deal of disturbance in the minds of those people who used to contribute to these causes, and he will make it much more difficult for them to raise anything like the same amount of money which they could raise before. I feel that this is a reasonable request and that the right hon. Gentleman should contribute at any rate the amount of extra effort required because of his own proposals which interfere with the voluntary hospitals. I think he should make good that extra amount of energy required. The voluntary hospitals have always worked extremely hard. I cannot see either that it is reasonable to ask them to work harder, because they have worked very hard, or that it is reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to wash his hands of the extra burden which he has placed upon the people who have raised funds in the past. He should give an undertaking that he will make good the extra energy which will be required to raise funds.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech said he would deal sympathetically with hospitals which might be in distress. He is taking over a large number of hospitals which are in a very flourishing condition, though there are some hospitals which are not so healthy. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in the case of those which may be in a bad way, if they come to him he will consider their requests. Is there any provision in this

Bill by which ha can do that? If there is no provision——

Mr. Bevan: It is not necessary.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman assures me on that point, though I consider the new Clause is reasonable, his assurance goes some way towards satisfying me.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I wish to follow up the question asked by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). I would like to know whether the Minister has power now to make a payment to the governing body of the hospital which is in need during the interregnum period. The sort of case I have in mind is that of a teaching hospital which urgently required to spend substantial sums of money on repairing and perhaps adding to its buildings. These sums of money, in the ordinary way, could easily have been found by means of a special scheme for that special purpose, but, at the present time, quite obviously, it is impossible to get funds for an addition to or extension of a hospital when the public know that, in a very few months, the buildings will be transferred and will become completely the responsibility of the Minister. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be quite useless to start an appeal in those circumstances. The only other way in which the hospital can supply the necessary funds is by dipping into the capital of its endowments. The governors of a hospital are thus placed in a very awkward dilemma. If they take the money out of the endowments and spend it on the hospital, they will reduce their endowments by that amount when the scheme comes into operation. They will be taking money which will be their own property, and spending it on property which, in a month or two will become the property of the Minister. [HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I submit that no board of governors ought to be placed in that position. They will say to themselves, "Having regard to the present level of prices, the difficulty of getting things done, and, finally, to the fact that we shall be spending this money in this way and will thereby lose it altogether, the answer must be that we will not spend the money."

Mr. Bevan: What do I understand the hon. Member to mean? He is a mem-


ber of a governing body. Do I understand him to say that, if a hospital required to have money spent upon it, in order to maintain the services at a proper level, they would not spend the money?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No, I did not say that. I said that if money was required to be spent urgently for adding to or improving the buildings of a hospital—quite a different matter—the fact that this money would have to come out of the ultimate capital of the hospital would weigh very heavily in the minds of the governors.

Mr. Bevan: If the building was urgently required, the board of governors responsible to the patients of the hospital would very seriously consider whether they should use money given for that purpose, which is exactly what it is given for?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think it is within the knowledge of the Committee that practically every hospital in this country requires buildings and things of that sort to be provided urgently. The choice before the governors is, therefore, whether they should spend their funds on the building, or on the current purposes of the hospital. It may be, as a matter of policy, that the money ought to be spent on buildings as soon as possible, but there is urgent need in both directions. It is a choice which the governors have to make in their discretion, and all I am saying is that, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to throw into that difficult choice, the further question that, if they spend this money, it will be lost to the capital of the hospital, I am sure most governors, in that difficulty, will come to the conclusion that they ought to keep the capital meanwhile.

Mr. Bevan: A very irresponsible statement.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What we are asking is whether, in a case of that kind, the right hon. Gentleman has power to come forward in cases of need, and, if satisfied that the need 15 sufficient, to assist the governors to do the necessary work.

Mr. Eccles: The Minister admits that the coming into force of this Bill must decrease voluntary subscriptions. The right. hon. Gentleman has told us so in Committee, and he has said so again today. I take the view that no manage-

ment committee of any voluntary hospital should lower its standards even if its income is not up to the usual level in the next couple of years. It will, therefore, either have to spend its endowments, and here I disagree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, or the hospital will, as in the past, have to incur an overdraft at the bank. The result is that, if the Minister does not accept this new Clause, he is deliberately taking action which will reduce the total of the assets of the hospitals when they are finally taken over. The Minister may say, "I do not mind doing that; I am not particularly interested in their having this pin-money when the State system comes in." I believe that to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but what he has no right to do is to tell this House that it is against Parliamentary principles that money should be given out to defray exceptional expenses pending the taking-over of the hospitals by the State.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, Sections 17 and 18, he will find that they give the Minister of Fuel and Power an obligation to make good to the collieries their increased expenses while waiting to be taken over, not only on income account but on capital account. If the Government are so interested in getting coal that they are willing to recompense colliery companies in the next two years, are they not equally interested in the running of the hospitals in the same period? They make a distinction in the case of the hospitals because there is this cushion of endowments, which they do not mind seeing dissipated in the next two years. I support the new Clause because I want to see the largest aggregate sum at the disposal of the voluntary hospital management committees and the regional boards after the State service comes in. I think there are many things, research and others, which will be more likely to be well done if that money is available to the management committees. The Minister, in resisting the new Clause, is quite clearly taking action to cut down the potentially good effects of the spending of these endowments once the State system has been brought into effect.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I feel that the arguments on the new Clause have gone rather wide. The object, as I understand it, is to help the hospitals in the intervening period between now and


the taking over by the State, and the object of the new Clause is to make provision for cases when hospitals get into difficulties. With that object, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is in full sympathy, but he says that the new Clause will not attain it. The right hon. Gentleman must, however, realise the difficulty in which the hospitals will be placed, because despite all the efforts on the part of the voluntary hospitals in the intervening period, there is a real danger that they will not be able to collect the necessary funds. The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal in Committee and has repeated it today, that the whole object this new Clause will be met by the regulations he will make, but I think that there is a real danger that a voluntary hospital will not be able to discharge its functions because of a lack of finance.
What is to happen in those circumstances? The new Clause suggests that the way to meet that situation is to allow the hospital management committees to make their appeal to the Regional Board. The Minister says that is not the way to do it, and that they must make their appeal to him. I agree with the point put by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) when he asked what provision there was in the Bill for such an appeal to the Minister and what powers the Minister has to devote money to meet the necessities of hospitals in those circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman has such a power, it would appear to me that the object of the new Clause is really met.

Mr. Bevan: Might I answer that question at once? This issue has been discussed on several occasions, and I do not think further Debate will expose the argument any further, as the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) has made it even clearer still. The fact is that the new Clause would not, of itself, accomplish the purpose which hon. Members have in mind, because voluntary hospitals can get into difficulties before the regional boards have been set up. One would therefore suppose——

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Bevan: I think I can make the position clear if I am permitted to make a full statement. If I had no power to

assist a hospital, the new Clause would not assist that particular hospital. I am. informed, however, that I have power, and the county has power, to assist a hospital which gets into particular difficulties. Hon. Members ought not to press this matter too far; they should be as anxious as I am to try and foster the enthusiasm and the activities of voluntary hospitals in the intervening period because, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has indicated to the extent that they do that they will have more money at their disposal when the new scheme starts. I should have thought that it would have been common ground in all parts of the Committee that what the House of Commons cannot do is to give a blank cheque, because that would be the effect of the proposed new Clause. I want to tell hon. Members that I will not do that.
The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) made a speech which, if I may say so with respect, disclosed a state of mind which filled me with alarm. [An HON. MEMBER: "And despondency,"] It would have done so if I thought that his view would prevail, but I am satisfied that it will not. He suggested that the management committee of a teaching hospital, having at its disposal endowments given for the maintenance of the hospital, would not use them in the meantime for urgent building if they thought that the using of those endowments would reduce the capital at their disposal when the new scheme came into operation.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was not suggesting that a management committee would not use such endowments; I suggested that they would not spend the capital of those endowments, or, rather, would tend not to do so, if there were a choice between spending capital on development and spending income.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for South Hendon and other hon. Members opposite are now making the Government's generosity a cause of complaint against the Government. Actually, there would have been nothing wrong in my taking all the endowments and using them for hospital purposes because that is what they were provided for. Hon. Members opposite are now complaining that, in the intervening period, management committees might be asked to use the money for


the reasons for which it was given. Never in the whole history of Parliament have I heard such absurdity. This matter has been thoroughly discussed, and the issues are perfectly clear. We want to get on, but I want hon. Members opposite to cooperate with me in this.
I am informed by persons responsible for the collection of funds for the voluntary hospitals that they would deprecate any decision taken by Parliament which might influence those subscribing in believing that it was no longer necessary to make their subscriptions because the State would automatically come to the hospitals' rescue. I thought I had dealt with the situation, as far as it was expedient to do so, in appealing to voluntary hospitals to try and maintain themselves at the maximum efficiency and in appealing to people to continue to make their contributions. We on this side of the Committee know that working class organisations will continue their subscriptions to voluntary hospitals. I am bound to say that the bulk of subscriptions does not come from rich people, but from the working classes. Hon. Members opposite are really suggesting that poor people have lower standards of generosity than the well-to-do, and that they will not maintain their contributions. The fact is that they will. The people who will not make their contributions will be the well-to-do who will say, "No, we are not going to contribute because the voluntary hospitals are going to be taken over by the State."
My last word on the subject is that, where a voluntary hospital gets into difficulty and the efficiency of its service is likely to be impaired by financial conditions over which it has no control, it can then come to me for assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: HOW can they?"] They should come in the ordinary way; the postal service still exists. If that is done, the circumstances of the particular case will be taken into account, but no general promise can be given.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I have seldom heard the right hon. Gentleman quite so far below form as he has just been. I strongly suspect that his argument is not his own, but a Treasury argument. I suspect that because he will not tell us, although he was pressed upstairs and again today, what his powers are

to help these hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman cannot pay money to hospitals during the next two years without some statutory authority, and yet he will not tell us what that statutory authority is, and nobody on this side of the Committee knows what it is. He was warned upstairs about this. One could forgive him then, although only with difficulty, for not having the exact statutory power in front of him because one would think that those who advised the Committee would certainly have had at their finger ends what those statutory powers were.
If there are such statutory powers, it is astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman has not asked, or has not been told, what they are. To ask the Committee simply to accept the vague assurance, "Come to me, and I will see you out of your trouble" is to treat it in a way in which it ought not to be treated. It is as if the right hon. Gentleman had a bottomless purse from which he could disburse money without any statutory authority at all. Therefore, we must press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the powers are as, otherwise, we cannot rest assured with his bare statement that he has certain powers. As I have said, we do not know what those powers are, and we will not rest content until we do.
I hope that when I sit down the right hon. Gentleman will get up and clear up this matter, which he could easily do if he wished. If it turns out that the powers which he is mentioning are so limited as to be useless, then, I am afraid, he is not being frank with the Committee, but if he has powers which are useful, then I can see no reason for his concealment of them. I do not wish to go over the details of this matter again because it has been covered from various angles by my hon. Friends, but I do not think that it has been sufficiently stressed that a number of hospitals—at least, hospitals with which I am acquainted—are hound under their trust deeds to hold the capital as capital and are not entitled to spend it. Indeed, I know of hospitals which are rapidly exhausting, if they have not already exhausted, that part of their endowments which they have legal power to spend. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what his attitude is to be towards a hospital which says, "It is true that we have£50,000 of endowments, but the trust


deed forbids us to spend that money, and only entitles us to use the income.''' Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the governing body of such a hospital should break the law and spend that money in a way for which they can be held personally accountable if they do so spend it?
I can see the right hon. Gentleman's point of view that hospitals which have money which they are free to spend in any way they like are in a position to use that money to carry them over the next two years. But what about the hospitals which do not have enough money which they are free to spend? The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of his generosity and farsightedness in not taking the endowments into the Treasury, but in allowing them to be used by hospitals as a "cushion" or as pin money or pocket money. If he says, "I have so little interest in preserving that 30 million that I do not care a bit if a lot of it is spent before 1948," we are inclined to suspect a little the value which he attaches to this "cushion" when the time comes, because when it is spread over all the beds it spreads out pretty thin, and if it is to be of any value at all, any further substantial diminution is most serious.
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have realised that once this Bill becomes an Act it will have been established that the hospitals are the responsibility of the State. That is the purpose of this Bill. The only reason why they are not taken over immediately by the State is administrative difficulties. Immediately Parliament has pronounced that this is the responsibility of the State, the right hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to see that that responsibility is met. He cannot say, "Because it does not please me to take over these hospitals until 1st April, 1948, I wash my hands of them and I expect those people who are at present in charge to work miracles and keep them going without any money." I think the right hon. Gentleman is being a little unreasonable about this. With regard to his point that the new Clause will not work, I say that it will work. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the first thing he will do when this Bill becomes law is to appoint the Regional Boards. I assume he means that they are to be appointed within a few weeks.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, really!

Mr. Reid: I should have thought so. If not he is not getting on with the job.

Mr. Bevan: That is not a very intelligent observation.

Mr. Reid: It means that the right hon. Gentleman is not getting on with the job as quickly as he ought to. Perhaps he will listen to what I have to say. Of course, before a Bill of this sort becomes law there are informal consultations with all manner of people as to how the machinery will work. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was neglecting his duties if he was not pursuing those consultations. If he pursued those consultations I would have thought that it would be a matter of weeks rather than months before these boards were set up. But if not, he cannot make 1st April, 1948, the appointed day. That date will have to be postponed unless these bodies get busy quickly—unless, of course, they are to be a mere camouflage and the whole thing is to be done in Whitehall. I do not think that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, however. If they are to do the work the right hon. Gentleman must see, as he has promised to see, that they are set up promptly. The first thing they will have to do will be to survey the hospitals in their respective areas. Therefore, it seems to us extremely appropriate that they should be the bodies to advise the Minister as to the real needs of these hospitals.
For that reason, it seems to me that the new Clause is a perfectly good one. However, we are quite willing to listen to the Minister if he will tell us, not only of his good intentions, but also of his powers and precisely what it is he is empowered to do. Then we shall know what we can charge him with failing to do if he does not do it. But we cannot rest on the mere assurance, "If you come to me everything will be all right." I cannot imagine why the Minister should be so inclined to conceal his powers in this matter, and I ask him once more to tell us frankly what the position is.

Sir E. Graham-Little: I want to put the case of the teaching hospitals, from the point of view of their financial difficulties. There are 12 of these hospitals in London, and more than six of them have been so seriously damaged that they are quite incompetent to carry on. After the last


war in similar circumstances, although not nearly so serious, a special committee was set up for reporting upon what had been done to the teaching hospitals. A very large sum was allocated for the special purpose of restoring the buildings which had been damaged. I would like to know what can be done in a similar way to aid the teaching hospitals. If the right hon. Gentleman says that they must use their endowments for that purpose, I would point out that those endowments are not nearly sufficient to meet this need. There must be a capital sum contributed by the Exchequer; there can be no other way.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to say a few words arising out the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). He said that the Minister was not going fast enough. That is a peculiar remark, coming from the other side of the Committee. Endowments were made by people who were interested in the health of the people, because the Tories were doing nothing whatever for the health of the people. Nothing was done; there was complete neglect. I am certain that the executors of any of these endowments would readily agree, in view of the services that are now being given to the people, that these endowments should be liquidated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) asked the Minister if he was going to loot these funds.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I never used the word "loot." I said that the public wanted to know whether they were subscribing to the voluntary hospitals, or whether they were giving money which the Minister was going to take—not loot.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the Minister with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. David Renton: We have a very simple point before us. It is a question of whether, when the Minister takes over the hospitals on All Fools' Day, 1948, the hospitals are going to be a damnosa haereditas, or as good a going concern as possible. With a view to trying to get this point elucidated when the Money Resolution was being discussed by the House, I asked the Minister

not once, but twice, what powers he had in this matter. I got as plain as answer as possible, that the Minister had no powers and that, therefore, it was essential that voluntary contributions should be continued meanwhile. May I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words?
I am glad that I have had the opportunity to make the matter public in this way. I certainly will take advantage of other opportunities to make it clear to the public that hospital services would gravely deteriorate unless contributions are maintained in the meantime and the whole machinery kept up to date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1946; Vol. 422, C. 448.]
We know that in Committee the matter was raised again, and it has been raised yet again today. I am sure that the Committee would be greatly reassured about this whole matter if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether the publicity officer of his Department or any agent of the Government has done what is clearly necessary, to impress upon the public the great need far continuing these contributions. We have to be realistic. The Minister has been remarkably realistic in his attitude towards the medical profession, and it is a little disappointing to find him less realistic in. this matter. In default of the necessary voluntary contributions, surely this proposed new Clause, which has been put forward in such a conciliatory manner by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland), offers a constructive suggestion. For that reason my hon. Friend and myself desire to support the proposed new Clause.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I ask the Minister this question: Why is there no danger to the administration of the hospitals if any deficiency is made up by him? His argument just now was that if the money came from the Regional Boards, and if the hospital management committees knew that any deficiency could be made good by the Regional Boards, there would be laxity of administration. Yet, if they are in financial difficulties, he says, "Come to me." Why should the fact that they can have their deficiencies made good by coming to him——

Mr. Bevan: Because the reason for the financial deficiency would have to be explained.

Mr. Lipson: In the proposed new Clause it is made perfectly clear that the Regional Boards should only make good any deficit after inquiry. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Minister should be so insistent in his opposition to this proposed new Clause. In point of fact, during the interim period it is doubtful if any hospitals would be able to live within their income if they tried, or to maintain their services and develop them where they ought to be developed. There will be a deficiency on all counts. The alternative is, they could make up that deficit either by getting an overdraft or by getting help through the Regional Boards or the Minister. Why he should object to it being made up by the Regional Boards I fail to see

Mr. Bevan: May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Members who have moved this proposed new Clause that, if they wish to insist upon a Division we might have it now? The issues have been fully exposed. We are now having arguments repeated. There are a number of very important matters which we want to discuss later on, and I think we might now submit the matter to the decision of the Committee.

Mr. Willink: Do I understand that the Minister is finally refusing to disclose what are the powers to which he has referred?

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that there are a variety of powers under which it is possible to do this. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I can assure hon. Members that I am advised there is no difficulty about providing money for hospitals which get themselves into admitted financial difficulty because of circumstances over which they have no control. I think that on reflection afterwards, hon. Members will find that they are doing a great disservice indeed to the voluntary hospitals.

Mr. Willink: I make one more appeal to the Minister. Our attitude on this may depend very largely on whether we are satisfied the Minister has these powers. I ask the Minister to consider this in the interests of the Committee and the hospitals as a whole. We follow his argument that their efforts must not be discouraged, but we do desire to be satisfied that the

Minister has these powers. If he has them, will he not tell the Committee what some of them are?

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Bevan: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am hoping that the Committee will be ready to come to a decision soon.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I thank the attitude that the Minister is now adopting is quite unparalleled in the memories of hon. Members of this Committee. Recently we have all known that the Government have refused to disclose figures on various grounds, which may or may not be sound. I have never before known a Minister, when repeatedly challenged, at all stages of a Bill, to state the statutory authority on which he bases his powers—which the right hon. Gentleman now asserts he has —refuse to give that information to any quarter of the Committee which has asked for it. How can we judge the merits of his objections to this proposed new Clause unless he discloses his powers and the limitations that may govern them? Why should he wish to conceal this from the Committee? Why should hon. Members opposite, with the striking exception of the Communist Party, desire that concealment to take place? Is there any reason why we should not know what the powers are on which the Minister relies? There are three Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench. Surely they can give utterance to some other statement than moving the Closure. The right hon. Gentleman says he wants to get on with this Bill. So do we. We do not desire, unless necessary, to sit all night. We should like to come to a decision on this at once, but it is the Minister himself who is delaying it. When he made his speech a few moments ago he said that that was the last word he would say. He made quite a long speech, but the only thing he omitted was mention of the statutory powers which he says he has. After listening to the speech of the Minister I begin to think he bases himself on a motto which may or may not be the name of a new revue, "Louder and Sillier."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman might have taken exception to being asked to quote his powers if he had been taken by surprise on this matter. However, nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this point has been raised again and again, and he has been given ample warning that he would be asked to quote the authority which he now purports to possess. This afternoon the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, in making a flat assertion that he has these powers, without condescending to tell the Committee how he has them, is the more curious'when one recollects what the right hon. Gentleman himself told the Committee on 27th June. When he was asked the same question on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
Speaking without examining the matter properly, it appears that, at the moment, I have not got the powers. Powers to provide money under the Emergency Medical Service are restricted to certain purposes. However, I will have a look at the matter further, because I agree that a depletion of a hospital's finances may have a very serious effect upon it, and I will certainly see what interim action can be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE C; Thursday, 27th June, 1946; c. 865.]

In the light of that, the Committee is faced with this dilemma. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not carry out his pledge to look into the matter further, in which case his assurance to the Committee on 27th June was worthless, or he did carry it out and, as a result of looking into it further, cannot quote one scrap of evidence.

Mr. Pickthorn: It seems plain that the question which is being put is about a matter of fact. I hope the Committee would agree with that. Secondly, it seems plain that the question which is being put is relevant to the matter under discussion. Thirdly, the only reason why the question of fact relevant to the discussion is not being answered is because of the Minister's unwillingness to answer it. I ask hon. Members on all sides of the Committee to consider whether, if I am right in those three points, it really could be proper or decent for anyone who is in the position of being wrong in a discussion to let it come to an end, or for any hon. Member to move the Closure.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes,107; Noes, 228.

Division No. 261.
AYES.
[5.40 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Howard, Hon. A.
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col C. E.


Boothby, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P, G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ross, Sir R.


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dower, Lt-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galleway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)
Teeling, William


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J W.
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gage, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
While, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Molson, A, H E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Graham-Little, Sir E.
Morris-Jones. Sir H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Harris, H. Wilson
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Commander Agnew and


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, C.
Mr. Studholeme




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Goodrich, H. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Randall, H. E.


Allighan, Garry
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Ranger, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Rankin, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Reeves, J.


Austin, H. L.
Guy, W. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayles, W. H.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Rhodes, H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hale, Leslie
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Baird, Capt. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Robens, A.


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barstow, P. G.
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barton, C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Battley, J. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Holman, P.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Berry, H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Shurmer, P.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Horabin, T. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
House, G
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Binns, J.
Hoy, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Blackburn, A. R
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. sir B. (Rotherhithe)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Bottomley, A. G.
Irving, W. J
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Janner, B.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch ge)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Snow, Capt. J. W


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Solley, L. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janes, J. H. (Bolton)
Sparks, J. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Stamford, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Keenan, W.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kenyon, C.
Stress, Dr. B.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Key, C. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Buchanan G.
Kinley, J.
Swingler, S.


Burden T. W.
Lang, G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Burke, W. A.
Lavers, S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Byers, Frank F.
Levy, B. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Callaghan, James
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Champion. A. J.
McAdam, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Chater, D
McAllister, G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cluse, W. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Cobb, F A.
McGhee, H G.
Titterington, M. F.


Cocks, F. S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Tolley, L.


Collindridge, F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Collins, V. J.
McLeavy, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Usborne, Henry


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Macpherson T. (Romford)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Corlett, Dr. J
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wadsworth, G.


Crawley, A.
Marquand, H. A,
Walkden, E.


Crossman, R. H. S. 
Medland, H. M.
Walker, G. H.


Daggar G.
Messer, F.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Montague, F.
Watkins, T. E.



Moody, A. S
Weitzman, D.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall).


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mort, D. L.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Deer, G.
Moyle, A.
Whiteley Rt Hon. W.


Diamond, J.
Nally, W
Wilkes, L.


Dodds, N. N.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Dumpleton, C W
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Dye, S.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Edelman, M
Oldfield, W. H.
Williamson, T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Orbach, M.
Willis, E.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilson, J. H.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wise, Major F. J


Evans, S, N. (Wadnesbury)
Parkin, B. T.
Woods, G. S.


Ewart, R.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Yates, V. F.


Farthing, W. J.
Paten, J. (Norwich)
Zilliacus, K.


Follick, M.
Pearson, A.



Foot, M. M.
Perrins, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Freeman, Maj J. (Watford)
Piratin, P.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Gallacher, W.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Mr. Hannan.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Popplewell, E.

NEW CLAUS:.—(Maintenance of services provided by voluntary organizations.)

Where the Minister is satisfied upon the representation of the governing body of any voluntary organisation performing any of the functions referred to in Part III of this Act, that by reason of a reduction in income it will be unable to maintain and develop its services during the period between the date of the passing of this Act and the appointed clay for the purposes of Part III, the Minister may make such payment to the organisation as in his opinion is desirable for the purpose of securing the maintenance and development of its services at a satisfactory standard during that period.—[Mr. Linstead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The arguments in favour of this Clause are essentially the arguments to which the Committee have already listened in respect of the previous Clause, and I suspect that the Minister's answer will be substantially the same, although one hopes that it will be perhaps a little briefer and a little more to the point. We anticipate that the same effect will be felt in regard to contributions by a large number of voluntary bodies, which at present provide services described in Part III of this Bill, as is likely to be felt by the voluntary hospitals, and that they will all suffer a diminution in their income as a consequence of the Bill's passing. If that be so, it is to the interest of everybody concerned, especially of the local authorities which will use these services, that they shall be maintained at their full efficiency. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in going over the arguments, and I think it will probably be sufficient if I put a simple question to the Minister, anti ask him whether he is satisfied that, in the event of any of these voluntary organisations finding themselves in difficulties and coining to him for financial assistance during the interim period, he will have the power—in whatever dark recesses that power may reside—to help them to carry on their services until they are taken under the wing of the local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Gentleman said in his commendably brief speech, for which I am grateful to him, the arguments are, in fact, the same as the arguments concerning the last new Clause, and the answer is the same—that where these organisations do get themselves into difficulties, and their efficiency is likely to be

impaired, and that it is necessary that they should be carried on for the new service, assistance will be forthcoming.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
Bill, reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Recovery of charges.)

All charges recoverable under this Act by the Minister, a local health authority or any body constituted under this Act, may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recovered summarily as a civil debt.—[Mr. Key.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

.50 p.m.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There is in Clause 71 a paragraph which says that local authorities, and the bodies constituted under this Bill, shall have the power to recover debts in a manner to be decided by regulation. The point was raised in Committee that this was much too vague and that the powers given were much too wide; and the Minister undertook to look into the matter. As a result, we have an Amendment on the Paper for the omission of paragraph (d) of Clause 71, and we now propose the substitution of this New Clause. It meets the criticism raised in the Committee, by making it more explicit that these debts are to be recovered summarily as civil debts only. At the same time, the Minister is included among those on whose behalf Regional Hospital Boards and other bodies will recover charges for appliances that have been supplied, private accommodation that has been given in hospitals, and similar debts that have arisen through the hospital services.
Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Delegation of powers by county council to council of borough.)

(1) A local health authority being a county Council may, on the application of the council of any borough (including a metropolitan borough) within the county by agreement delegate to the council of that borough either with or without restrictions or conditions, any of the functions of the authority under the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to the care of mothers and young children, the employment of midwives, health visiting, home nursing, vaccination and immunisatior, ambulance services, the prevention of illness, care and aftercare, and domestic help.

(2) If the council of a borough who have made an application under the preceding Subsection are aggrieved by the refusal of the local health authority to delegate functions, or by any conditions or restrictions which the authority propose to impose, the council of the borough may make a representation to the Minister and the Minister after consultation with the local health authority may by order direct them to delegate to the council of the borough, either with or without restrictions or conditions, such of the said functions under Part III of this Act as the Minister thinks proper, and the local health authority shall comply with any direction so given.

The Minister may at any time by order revoke an order previously made by him under this Subsection.

(3) Any expenses incurred by the council of a borough in the discharge of functions delegated to them under this Section shall up to an amount not exceeding such sum as may be fixed by the local health authority or on an appeal by the Minister be repaid to the council of the borough by the local health authority.—[Mr. Lipson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lipson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause provides for delegation by the local health authority—in this instance, the county council—to one of the boroughs within the county, of certain powers which the local health authority has under Part III of the Bill. These authorities have exercised these powers in the past. They have exercised them well, and it is desirable, in the opinion of many of us, that they should continue to do so. They can be given this power of delegation either by agreement with the county council itself, if the county council itself is satisfied that these powers should be delegated; but if there is a difference of opinion on this matter between the non-county boroughs and the county councils, then the matter is referred to the Minister for decision. The Minister did raise as an objection to this, the point that it would cause controversy between the county council and authorities within their areas, and that he did not want to be asked to intervene in quarrels of that kind. But differences of opinion are bound to arise. I do not see why the Minister should object to controversy. Controversy of the right kind is healthy. There can be honest difference of opinion on the right way of doing a thing, and I do not see why the Minister should hesitate to accept the responsibility of mediating between the authorities when there is a genuine matter of dispute. I hope he will not press that objection this

time. The Clause also provides that the Minister shall have power to revoke any Order which he has given, after mediation, for a county council's powers to be delegated to the smaller authorities. If the county council, in the first instance, is satisfied that it is desirable that these powers should be delegated, why should there be objection? If the county council is not satisfied, but if the Minister is satisfied, that these powers should be delegated, why should these powers not be delegated?
Let me show what these powers actually are, because I think that when hon. Members hear what the; are they will realise that the case for delegation to a smaller authority is very strong. They are powers relating to the care of mothers and young children; the employment of midwives; health visiting; home nursing; vaccination and immunisation; ambulance services; the prevention of illness, care and after care; and domestic health. I submit that all these services are personal services; they are human services; they are services best administered locally, and, very often, so far as some of them are concerned, they are services which require quick and immediate attention. Emergencies may arise, particularly in connection with the midwifery services; and, therefore, it is important that they should be administered by the smaller local authorities, with whom citizens can obtain immediate contact. Most people know their own local town hall. They knew their local officers. But the county administration, to a great many people, is very remote, and it is not easy for them to get at it. The people who will be affected by these services have not all got telephones; they have not all got motor cars in which to go out to make representations with regard to the services that they require.
There is, also, the question of people in the locality being able to keep a proper check on the administration of these services. With all due respect to the county council, it does not meet anything like as frequently as the smaller authority. The smaller authority meets once a month, whereas the county authority meets only four times a year. Therefore, I emphasise most strongly, that it is in the interest of those who will be affected, that these services should be administered locally, because people will be able to get into more immediate contact with


them. But the taking of these powers from the smaller local authorities does create a much bigger issue. I hope that we shall not be told today, as we have been on previous occasions, that the desire to retain existing powers by smaller local authorities is due to the vested interests of those authorities, or the vested interests of town clerks. Something much bigger than that is involved.
6.0 p.m.
What is really involved here is the future of local government in this country. I maintain that local government is the successful machine that it is, because there has been a spreading of responsibility through the various grades, and because more and more citizens have been brought into the administration of affairs in their areas. We are endangering this democratic form of government if we try to take away the powers of these smaller local authorities. No one can believe for a moment that the position will rest where the Minister is proposing to leave it. I ask the Minister to be more sympathetic towards this proposal than he has been on a previous occasion. The argument has been that by delegating these powers he will be cutting at the very root of the proposal in the Bill, which is to put all these health services under one authority. Surely the real merit of the service is not whether it is under one authority or under another, but whether it is under the authority which can administer it best.
I believe that the Minister is putting too many powers on the larger authorities. The larger authorities, in many instances, would welcome the power to delegate to smaller authorities, because they feel they are unable to give the time and attention which are required by some of these matters. If the Minister persists, it will mean that the administration of these services will rest largely in the hands of officials. Speaking as one who has been associated with local government for many years, and has a high respect for the ability of our local government officials, I would point out that while they may be good servants they are bad masters. It is necessary to maintain the control of the locally elected representatives over all these matters. For these reasons, I ask the Minister sympathetically to consider this new Clause. This is no party issue. This Clause has the support of Members in all quarters who realize

the value of the work done by some of these smaller authorities, and the need to retain as many powers as possible for them. We shall not be able to retain the personnel of the smaller authorities unless we give them work to do. If we constantly whittle their work away and diminish the services they can render, we shall be doing a great deal of harm. It is because I believe it to be in the best interests of those who will benefit, and in accordance with our democratic traditions of local government, that I move this Clause.

Mr. G. Lang: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not wish to detain the House with a repetition of the arguments which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has so cogently and effective:y made. I should be wrong if I did not once again protest against the steady stripping away of the powers of smaller local authorities. A good deal of that has happened already since this Parliament was elected, and I do not think it makes for good and effective government or good and effective administration. These are particularly humane services, and they are best administered on the spot by people who understand. There is another point, and that is the unwillingness of people, especially at times of illness and anxiety, to go away. Many of them are anxious if they have to see a doctor. We all know that when there is illness among some poorer people there is this fear, and that often they wait far too long, because they are too nervous to see a doctor. They only go as a last resort. If these people have to deal with bodies which are remote, much of the effectiveness of the Bill may be lost.
I have the honour to represent three non-county boroughs, and I know the splendid work which is being done by them. People forget their differences of opinion and cooperate in various ways in a real attempt to lighten the burden of their less fortunate fellows. I do not believe that under the Bill in its present form that can be done. I hope that this Clause will be accepted to make this Bill, which is a magnificent instalment, far more effective. It is a good thing to have the good will of these non-county boroughs. These smaller authorities are apt to be disregarded, and to be trampled under foot. One by one they are losing


their powers, but they are still very effective. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to give sympathetic consideration to these proposals. No one is more conversant than he with the needs of the poorer people, and no one is more conversant with the way in which these people are nervous of authority, and especially remote authority. All the propaganda in the world will not remove these feelings. I hope therefore that I can go to my three non-county boroughs and tell them that at long last it is not quite hopeless, and that they are not going to lose everything there is except their Member.

Mr. Bevan: I believe that it would be convenient if I replied immediately, in order to apprise the House of the point of view which the Government have formed about this Clause. Hon. Members on this side of the House, and also I imagine hon. Members on the opposite side, will not need me to assert my desire to foster good local government in this country. I have been a member of local authorities for more years, probably, than a good many hon. Members in the House, and I have served on almost every kind of local authority. I am as aware as most people of the invaluable services of local authorities in the government of this country. It would certainly be a mutilation of our Constitution and of our inheritance, if we did anything which would gravely undermine local patriotism, and the interest local people take in the management of affairs in their areas. I can assure hon. Members that nothing I have done in this Bill has been done with a view to undermining the structure of local government. I would remind hon. Members of what I said on Second Reading, that in framing these proposals, I have kept in mind one consideration and one consideration only, and that is the welfare of the patient—not the interests of local government, or the interest of anyone else. I know that there are a good many local authorities who identify the preservation of their own privileges with the welfare of their citizens, but quite often the welfare of their citizens would be promoted by the diminution of their privileges.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that that tendency is limited to local authorities?

Mr. Bevan: It is probably shared by a good many, but Mr. Deputy-Speaker would stop me from throwing my net any wider on this occasion. The consideration, therefore, which I had in mind was how to provide the best kind of health service for the people of this country, and the sort of local authority through which it could be expressed.
This new Clause is an exceedingly important one. If it were accepted, it would fundamentally change the Bill, and not only change the Bill but, in my submission, wreck it. I will try to prove that. In the first place, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) spoke about the non-county boroughs. Why has he not mentioned the urban districts? There are a large number of urban districts that are far larger and more important than many non-county boroughs. In fact, some of the non-county boroughs are woefully unable to discharge their existing functions, so small are they; and although they are ancient, and have great pride, and maintain the full pageantry of their historic lineage, nevertheless the discharge of their functions is woefully behind.[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman would extend chaos even further. He would include urban district councils—but where would one stop? Some of the rural authorities are even bigger than the urban authorities, and more important. Would he include them? Why stop there? Why not the parish councils?
It is always possible, in every Measure which is brought before the House, to say that there are borderline cases. There are local authorities which, by population and by area, have reached a stage when they ought to be promoted. But that is not a matter for me. That is a matter for the Boundary Commission. There is a Boundary Commission concerned with them, and a case can he cited. I would point out to hon. Members that we should be getting into an administrative morass if, after bringing this great scheme into being, I was asked to arbitrate, as a Minister, between the respective claims of the different local authorities on what they should do under this Bill. The Minister would be put in a wholly impossible situation. In fact, he would be asked to discharge empirically, under the terms of this Bill, precisely the responsibility which the House has given to the Boundary Commission. That is an


impossible thing to ask the Minister to do. I, therefore, resist it on those grounds alone.
Furthermore, I would have to do that at the very time when the main administrative task of launching this scheme was under way. I assure hon. Members that if the principle of delegation has to be considered before the public health authorities, before the county and county boroughs, are able to present their schemes to the Minister, we would not get this scheme started in April, 1948. It would not start before 1949 or 1950. Arbitration and hearings would have had to take place. Every non-county borough, every urban authority, and, maybe, other local authorities could make its application. It would have to be heard, properly considered and arbitrated upon before any single health authority could start its schemes under the Bill. Where do hon. Members think we would get to? Is that in the interests of the patients or people of Great Britain? It is in the interests of the non-county boroughs, not of the patients.
6.15 p.m.
Under this Bill, very important functions are being put upon the county and county boroughs. They are to prepare schemes for the health centres. They will have to prepare schemes for the supervision and organisation of the general practitioner service. They could not start because they would not know whether they had the functions or not, or the areas over which they had to preside. Every one of these difficulties would be created. In the meantime, the poor Minister of Health, whoever he might be, would find himself bombarded by a series of delegations, accompanied by their Parliamentary agents. All these would be putting forward the parochial considerations which led them to make their application. We would have departed entirely from the principle of functionalism and landed ourselves straightaway into parochialism. I ask hon. Members seriously to consider this before they support proposals of this kind, at this late stage. This matter has been considered twice in Committee, and it has been examined exhaustively. It was also examined on Second Reading, and has been examined as the scheme itself has been assembled.
There are other considerations even more important. One of the criticisms levelled at this scheme, as a whole, is

that it is not a complete unit, and all the health services are not integrated in it. One of the health services not integrated is the educational health service—the school health service. That point was made on Second Reading in some parts of the House. I admitted it, but I pointed out that the local health authority is coterminous with the local education authority. As the health service develops, the educational authority service will be assimilated into the National Health Service, leaving the medical inspectors where they are, because they perform very important preventive functions. Surely, it is admitted on all sides of the House that we ought, at the earliest possible moment to destroy these discontinuities in the service. It is not reasonable that a child before it goes to school should be under one doctor and when it goes to school be under another doctor, and when it leaves school be under yet another doctor. It has been argued, and I have accepted the argument, that it is desirable that the child should be under the care of the same doctor and that the same therapeutical service should be available for the child in school, as well as out of school. Otherwise it would mean that there would be a complete separation between the health service and the educational service and that at no point would we be able to assimilate them into the same service.
I think that hon. Members will see that, when they start asserting the claims of a particular unit of local government, and do not keep before their minds all the while the welfare of the citizen, in fact, before long they would get themselves into serious trouble, and find themselves supporting all sorts of authorities and interests, and the welfare of the individual would he left very far behind. I agree that what we must do is to try to keep the supervision of the health service itself, particularly the maternity and child welfare service, as local as possible. Provision is made for that in the Bill. Provision is made for county and county boroughs to have sub-committees on which the local authorities in the area would be represented. That is the reasonable way in which there would be kept local touch throughout. In Part II of the Fourth Schedule hon. Members will see
The health committee of a local health authority may, subject to any restrictions imposed by the local health authority, estab-


lish such sub-committees as the health committee may determine, and any sub-committee established under this paragraph shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the health committee, and at least a majority of every sub-committee shall be members of the local health authority or of a local authority for any area forming part of the area of the local health authority.

Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: They may establish or they may not.

Mr. Bevan: Every local authority has to submit schemes to the Minister, and I shall see that there are local sub-committees on which the areas would be represented. It is necessary that one should have local touch in these matters, and, therefore, any scheme should provide for these local committees. I should be distressed and dismayed at having to carry out the administration of this great scheme if this new Clause were added to the Bill. I am certain that soon I should be faced with an administrative breakdown. Instead of simplifying the administration, we should make it infinitely complex. In the case of the child welfare services we have followed the new education authorities and the new Education Act, because again we shall be concerned with the education authorities. I do not want to be guilty of an indiscretion, but I doubt very much whether on reflection the House now would establish those executives. There we in the last Parliament surrendered, but to what did we surrender? To the ex parte claims of local government. I have had to follow these education authorities. The last Government, in my view, ought not to have yielded to them, and I am not now going to yield to this pressure, because if I yielded to this pressure, we should have more confusion.
I have spoken at some length on this subject, because I know hon. Members attach very great importance to it, and I attach great importance to it myself. It is not true that we are undermining local government in this country. The functions of local government are undergoing considerable changes, and local government must be restated from time to time in terms of the needs of the situation and in terms of new principles of administration. Local government is not abolished by restatement of its functions. It may be we shall have a considerable reorganisation of local government in

this country, but the reorganisation of local government which adapts it to the needs of the situation vitalises local government. What devitalises local government is to maintain a structure wholly out of accord with the needs of the situation, and many of our local government authorities are out of touch with the needs of the situation. Many of the local authorities for whom the hon. Member for Cheltenham speaks are very important housing authorities, and it is noteworthy that some of the authorities mentioned in the Clause are backward. If hon. Members look at the latest housing return they will see that some of the non-county boroughs are the most backward in Great Britain in discharging their existing functions. The most advanced are often rural authorities, and the next are the county boroughs but the most backward are some of the non-county boroughs, because they are great historical institutions, too small to be able to afford to make a proper start. Their rateable value is too restricted, and their revenues too meagre. We do not increase their revenues by giving them new jobs. The hon. Member said they were unable to obtain efficient staff because their functions are being taken away, but what is really undermining the local administration is that their burdens have transcended their own financial power. Therefore, we do not improve the situation by giving them new functions. I plead with hon. Members in all parts of the House not to make at this stage a change in the structure which would be fundamental, and, in my view, would be administratively impracticable to carry out.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I desire to support this new Clause, though I am bound to say that as it stands on the Order Paper it is particularly wide in effect. It would, I think, enable some of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the more backward local health authorities to delegate some of their powers without anyone being able to step in and see that the situation was such as this House obviously intends. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps not read through the Order Paper and seen that there is another Amendment, one to Clause 20, which links up with this new Clause. That Amendment provides that any scheme of delegation would require, first, to be submitted, and, secondly, to be approved by the Minister before coming


into effect. In other words, it would not be possible for a local health authority merely to come to an agreement with a subsidiary authority to delegate without any supervision, for any delegation would require to be in accordance with a scheme, which would no doubt be most carefully vetted by the Ministry of Health before being approved. It would be approved only in accordance with some general principle.
I represent half of a non-county borough with a population of somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 people. It is, I suppose, one of the largest if not the largest non-county borough in England, and, if I may say so, can hardly be compared with some of the small authorities which will be constituted local health authorities under this Bill. Most of the duties in Part III of the Bill are, in fact, at present being carried out by the borough of Hendon, and very efficiently carried out, too. I doubt very much whether they are more efficiently carried out anywhere else in the country. If these duties are to be transferred from the borough of Hendon to the county of Middlesex two things would result. There would be a serious temporary disorganisation of services and a permanent loss of efficiency.
I hope I may be able to give some concrete examples to show that this is indeed the case. I am not arguing for this new Clause simply because of the fact that I represent a non-county borough. That borough has interests, what I think the right hon. Gentleman has described as vested interests, and it has asked that this Bill should be amended in other particulars in accordance with those interests. I have not thought fit to press for such Amendments, but I do press for the acceptance of this Clause because I think that it can be supported with cogent arguments. There is, for example, a health centre at present run by the Borough of Hendon. That health centre is part and parcel of the town hall. It is used for maternity and child welfare work, and I think I am right in saying it is exclusively used for that purpose. Hendon is authorised by virtue of a scheme under Part III of the First Schedule of the Education Act 1944 to exercise on behalf of the county council functions relating to primary and secondary education.
6.30 p.m.
By virtue of Clause 23 (4) of this Bill the borough will, presumably, remain responsible for the care of children from the ages of 0–5, and also for the care of school children from 5–16, as we hope it will be in the near future, under the Education Act. If this Bill becomes law as it stands, without this new Clause, the borough will be responsible for the care of these children coming to the health centre, but will have no responsibility for the mothers. I do not know how that position can be sorted out. You will have to split up the rooms within the health centre, split up the services of those who are working in the centre, so that some of them will be available for the children on behalf of the borough, and others for the mothers on behalf of the county. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can make a division of that sort work.
I would like to give another example, perhaps more striking, of the benefits which, I believe, delegation involves. The borough of Hendon is now responsible for immunisation against diphtheria. That is one of the services which will be transferred, under this Bill, from the borough to the county. In the exercise of its powers in respect of immunisation, the borough has been most progressive. It has linked this work with maternity and child welfare work, health visiting and school medical services generally, and, as a result, it has managed to secure, by means of the intensive propaganda it has been able to build up, that very nearly 100 per cent. of all children attending welfare centres have been immunised against diphtheria. For the last complete year, 1945, there have been only II cases of diphtheria within the whole borough. One was in the age group 0–1, another in the age group 1–3, another in the age group 3–5, another in the age group 5–10, another in the age group 10–15, and six, more than half the total, were over school age. It can be truly said that as s result of carrying out its immunisation service the borough of Hendon has virtually reduced the diphtheria rate to nil. Further, the cost of the campaign has been trifling.
There is an example of the way in which a non-county borough can carry out duties which are to be taken away from it by this Bill. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will be


almost impossible for a health authority, however efficiently it does its work, to do this sort of thing, because it will no longer control the other services with which the immunisation service is linked. There will be a complete disruption of these services, which it is our desire to see integrated. I have given practical examples of what necessarily must happen if no power to delegate is given. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, and see whether some power to delegate can be put into the Bill. It may he that he will wish to modify this Clause for the reasons he has given, but I ask him to say that a case can be made out for proper delegation to the great non-county boroughs who have done their work splendidly in the past, and who, if these powers are taken away, can only be left with a sense of frustration.

Mr. Messer: Does the hon. Gentleman expect different work on the county council from what he gets on the borough council?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am grateful for that question, because that is the point I was trying to make. I am not for a moment suggesting that the county council will not attempt to do this work with the same energy and good will as the borough council, but if you divide the powers, if you prevent delegation with the result that some services have to be carried out by the borough and others by the county, you cannot possibly have that degree of efficiency which we have reached in the case of Hendon.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: The main authority with which I am concerned is an urban district council. It is very jealous about these services being taken away, because it was working maternity and child welfare services five years before the 1918 Act came into force, long before the county council. The mortality rate has been reduced by something like 100 during that time. Also in my constituency there is part of a non-county borough which is trying to get a new maternity home, and it is doing its job very well. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's intention in not wanting to accept this Clause, but when he said that it would wreck the whole Bill his language seemed very strange to me. Surely, the people who are very zealous of the services they pro-

vide ought to be given some consideration. I have a letter here which was sent to the Ministry of Health from the Rothwell Urban Council, in which it makes it clear that it has very much better services than the county. The letter says:
My Council at present administer their own maternity and child welfare services, and they are of the opinion that they can provide a service far superior to that provided by the County Council, in neighbouring districts, and are desirous that the service should be continued at its present level. I am instructed to ask the Minister of Health to insert a Clause whereby the authorities administering maternity and child welfare services should be afforded delegated powers. It is noted that there was a clause to this effect in Command 6502, which was presented to Parliament in February, 1944. My Council desire that a similar clause should be inserted in the present Bill.
I have proof beyond doubt, that my town council has very much better services than the county council. I do not, however, propose to take up time by going into the details, which I have here, but merely to deal with general principles. Many of the county councils are reactionary bodies. There is need to retain local touch with the people. I appreciate that perhaps the school medical services and the maternity and child welfare services should be together, but when it is suggested that they should be under one doctor, I say that we shall not get them all under one doctor. There will be overlapping, but that difficulty can be overcome. In some local areas there are very efficient services. In my own town there is a maternity home which has been in existence since 1928. The county council has only two maternity homes in the West Riding.
Some of the local authorities have shown the way very clearly. I do not want to argue against progress, but there is a very definite fear in some parts of the West Riding that they will not be as well served when they go over to the county council. That applies to many little towns of 24,000 or 25,000 inhabitants, such as the Rothwell urban district area. If the Minister will not accept the new Clause, will he, in the case of the authorities which have done excellent work in regard to these services during the last 30 years, agree that if the health authority is prepared to delegate powers, he will have no objection to that happening, and if it will not delegate powers, will


he intervene in cases where he knows that the services in a local area are better than those of the county council?

Brigadier Peto: I was not fortunate enough to be a Member of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. I intervene in support of this new Clause because, like the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks), I represent a very scattered agricultural area in which there are two non-county boroughs. The tendency of this Bill is to overcentralise in widely scattered areas. I think that the Bill is probably excellent for towns, but not for widely scattered agricultural areas. In North-West Devon the county council might as well be in London as where it is, from the point of view of getting into close contact with the people. The county council is 60 miles from some of the parishes. Nobody can pretend that one can get as efficient service from a county council 50 or 60 miles away as from a local borough which has the welfare of the people at heart and full knowledge of each family in its own borough. That is one reason why I support the Clause. There is perhaps a loophole, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Rothwell, for the delegation of powers in certain areas. I notice that in Clause 31, provision is made for variation in certain areas. Subsection (3) reads:
Where it appears to the Minister that owing to the special circumstances of the area for which an executive council has been or is to be constituted under this section it is desirable to vary the constitution of that Council, he may by order provide for such variation.
If the Minister may do that in connection with the executive council, why should he not go a stage further and allow for variation, in other respects, in widely scattered agricultural areas? Finally, I dislike the tendency in the whole of the Bill to place extraordinary power in the hands of the Minister. Throughout Parts III and IV of the Bill, one finds that "the Minister may direct,"or" with the approval of the Minister,"or" if directed by the Minister," somebody shall do certain things. To my mind, too much power of direction is given to the Minister, and this will be at the expense of time and efficiency and at the expense of local bodies, even of county councils. Therefore, I support the new Clause, which I hope will be pressed to a Division.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: As I have a similar new Clause on the Order Paper, I feel it is my duty to support this new Clause. It does not give me very great pleasure to support a Clause which is under the names of hon. Members opposite, although the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) is also attached to it. I sometimes have doubts about some of the Opposition's motives. On this occasion, however, we can discuss the matter irrespective of party. Many of us on all sides of the House have experience of local government and can speak on this matter with intimate knowledge. If it should be claimed that, for that reason, we speak from the point of view of having a vested interest to defend, let me absolve myself from that accusation immediately, for although I am on a local authority, I am at the moment on the minority side. Therefore, I have not a vested interest.
The Minister said, quite rightly, that we are concerned with the patients. I believe that some hon. Members on both sides were affected by the Minister's eloquence, and I think there are four points which ought to be recalled in order that his eloquence should not overawe us. First, we are concerned with guaranteeing to the public the best treatment that can be given; second, we are concerned that that treatment shall be convenient to them; third, that the treatment shall be such that there is sympathy and understanding in the way in which it is administered; and, fourth—a thing with which, I am sorry to say, the Minister does not seem to be very much concerned—that there shall be democratic control by the public close to these authorities and not remote from them. I would like to say a few words on those four points and on the remarks of the Minister.
I agree with the Minister that a rich authority could certainly provide better treatment than a poor and small authority. Nevertheless, the Minister is recognising in other fields that it is the smaller authorities which require to be helped by the central authority, precisely because the present rating system is a bad and inequitable one; and until such time as the rating system is adjusted, we have to recognise facts as they are, and press the need for granting subsidies, in this respect, in the same way as the Minister recognises it in other fields. Therefore,


we have to bear that in mind as a question of convenience; and I think that even a greater authority would also bear in mind the fact that it required to spread its services as much as possible. I am, however, not very much concerned with that and think that it will work out whichever way it is approached.
The third point, and one about which I am very much concerned, is that in answer to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) the Minister referred to the fact that he would insist that the local health authorities appointed sub-committees. I am a London Member and have experience of sub-committees. In London, the present social welfare service has a number of divisions or so called subcommittees, and if ever there was an epitomisation of bureaucracy and Bumble-dom it is to be seen in them. London is an exceptionally vast authority with a population of 4,000,000——

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will recollect that there is another Amendment which deals with London and therefore London is not really to be dealt with under this Amendment.

Mr. Piratin: I accept your Ruling, Sir, but I would point out that if I am to give an illustration it must be from my own intimate experience, and, with respect, I hope that you will allow me to continue to use London for the purposes of my illustration. I was dealing with the point I have made about understanding and sympathy and whether it could be provided when the authority in question was of the size of London or, for that matter, of Lancashire. That is the point I am dealing with, and my illustration can only be based on London. The Education Act, to which the Minister referred, is another case in point. London is one education authority—it was before the new Act and still is; and the Metropolitan Boroughs were not given their various responsibilities. They were not given an opportunity of being accepted, and therefore we have here also sub-committees in London. My opinion, which I believe is shared by many who know something about the matter, is that this is not satisfactory. I have mentioned these illustrations to show that the Minister does not appear to appreciate this point of sympathy and understanding in the provision of treatment.
My fourth point is that of democratic control. Let me take Lancashire, although I do so only from book knowledge and an occasional visit to that county rather than from personal experience such as I have of London. In Lancashire we shall have the anomaly that there are 18 or 19 county boroughs—I speak from memory—and that over and above these county boroughs, some of which are the size of Manchester, for example, there is the whole expanse of Lancashire to be covered by one local health authority, which will administer the whole county.

Mr. Messer: No.

Mr. Piratin: Yes, because we remove the county borough and the only other health authority responsible is the county council; and as the 18 or 19 county boroughs are scattered throughout Lancashire the only authority left is the county council. I am sure that the hon. Member will grant me that. Other hon. Members could give more details of the population and so on than I can, but there will be one local authority for the whole of Lancashire which, from one end to the other, covers some 140 miles. Here and there in between there is the anomaly of the county boroughs, but will anyone suggest that there is the possibility of democratic control in such an authority? There is no such possibility. We shall have sub-committees, and on those subcommittees there will no doubt be a proportion of councillors, who will be county councillors, and also a proportion of representatives of local authorities—in that case councillors of the urban district councils, municipal councils and so on. But they will have no authority; the authority will rest higher up. All that they will be able to do will be to refer matters higher up, which is the kind of experience I have had in London on social welfare and education where matters are referred to County Hall. I do not believe that any Minister or any hon. Member would suggest that that will really make for the democratic control which we wish to achieve adequately in our time.
There are other anomalies, but I want to pass on. It seems to me that the House, on this occasion as on other occasions, is being treated to a very interesting manœuvre. The Minister of Health is not responsible alone, and there seems to


be an underlying policy here. The Education Act, which was introduced years ago, was not the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman or of the present Government. Gradually, through each different Bill which this House approves, we have an acceptance of responsibility on the part of given local authorities without ever reaching the stage where we are going to discuss the structure of local government at all. At some time, "Maybe this year, maybe next year" as the song goes, we shall be introduced to a Bill dealing with local government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is reported in today's Press as having made a speech in the country this weekend in the course of which he said that within the next ten years there will be a revolution in the structure of local government. He may not have said "revolution," although I like that word, but perhaps he used some similar term. He knows about it, and I have no reason to doubt that the Minister knows about it, and that they have in mind what they propose to bring in in due course, but we do not know about it.
What will happen? If I were the Minister, this is the argument I should use when that local government Bill was being introduced. I should say, "Surely this House must see the logic of what I am proposing in 1948"—or whenever it may be—" for we have an Education Act where the local authorities responsible are the county councils, and we have a Health Act where the local authority responsible is the county council "—by that time no doubt there will be one or two other Acts which will conform in the same way—" and surely the local government proposition which I am now introducing must be accepted, otherwise there will be more chaos." The Minister likes the word "chaos" and the argument would be perfectly true because there would be even more chaos then. I am all in favour of resolving as soon as we possibly can the question of our local government structure, but I think that we are leading up to a stage where one day we shall be presented with what will almost amount to a fait accompli and have to accept a Bill which confirms the local government structure which is gradually being introduced by one Bill after another.
I do not believe that the Minister can really uphold this argument, for when he

was making his case before, he said, in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, if the hon, Member wanted boroughs why not urban districts, why not rural districts, or why not even the parish councils? All right, but what about the anomaly we have in our system? What about the London County Council, with a population of four million, and the Welsh or Scottish county councils with 50,000? What about the example given by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) of the Hendon Borough Council, and what about the fact that in Middles-3x there are authorities like Hendon and others with well over 100,000 population? The whole of Middlesex will be the local authority, whereas in Essex, by the freak of some circumstance of the past when, some 50 years or so ago, the local authority of that area requested that it should become a county borough, Southend is a county borough. East Ham and West Ham are also county boroughs, and the Essex County Council will be an identical authority with these county boroughs and urban district councils. Does the Minister approve of that? He cannot. He has an orderly mind, as he has told us so often. I accept that.
7.0 p.m.
We want to see this thing working in an orderly way, but we have to accept the facts as they are. These are the facts. The Minister may say, for the sake of showing that he considers the logic of the argument used by the hon. Member for Cheltenham wrong, that he does not accept this, but I think he must acknowledge the logic of the existing system. Let us acknowledge that there are anomalies in the system of local government, and that there will be——

Mr. Speaker: This is not the occasion, I would remind the hon. Member, for discussing the future of local government.

Mr. Piratin: I will not dispute your Ruling, Sir, but I would say that it is not my intention to discuss the future of local government. You will observe that I have not put forward my proposals on the subject, although I have some good ideas. I am only, as you might say, speaking around the subject. In due course, the Minister may give 'me an opportunity of speaking more fully, if a


Bill is brought in on the subject of local government. I will then put forward my proposals, provided you will give me the opportunity. I am about to close my speech, anyway.
I have given some points to strengthen the case for the Minister to give way on this matter. I would draw attention to the fact that an Amendment of mine, which was not accepted, referred to major and minor local authorities. I have heard the Minister's answer on this matter before, but on this occasion, if he and the Parliamentary Secretary had listened to the arguments, I am sure they would have taken the view that this matter is worth reconsidering. The Minister has stated before that this proposal would upset the whole Bill. I do not think so. We have reached a stage of history when a number of things will have, for a while, to be a little bit piecemeal until we find our true level in government and so on. Under the Labour Government we shall gradually find it, because there is a greater degree of good will than there has ever been before. There must be some measure of give and take and I, therefore, hope that the Minister will now see his way to giving way on the point.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I feel sure that the House will agree with me that if the Communist doctrine were always to show itself constructive as the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has shown himself in his speech it might gain a new adherent every time he spoke in the country for every one lost when the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) gets up in the House. The Minister gave us a very full description of the consequences of accepting the proposed new Clause, and he included a very fine eulogy of local authorities. I know that he himself has been a very diligent member of a local authority for a number of years. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain changes were fundamental to improvement of local government. Why then, is he refusing to accept the proposed new Clause or some proposal on the same lines? The right hon. Gentleman is by means of this Bill making fundamental changes in the structure of local government, and he is doing it here and now, before any Commission has been set going at all. He is practically annihilating a largo number of responsible authorities,

from the point of view of health administration. As one reason for rejecting the proposed new Clause he said that there were a rather large number of poor local authorities. He particularly mentioned non-county boroughs. He proposes to penalise at the same time first-class local authorities, some of whom were pioneers in this matter of health administration long before county councils were thought of. By not accepting the proposed new Clause the right hon. Gentleman is taking away a vast field of health service from those authorities and transferring it to bodies far removed from them.
I cannot speak of London, which other hon. Members know much better than I do, but I do know about county councils in my part of the country. By means of the Bill, one of the best local authorities in my county will be rendered nugatory, although it has one of the best records in this work. Great lack of interest in the subject will result from their functions being transferred to a body far away. The authority I have in mind has 25,000 people, many of whom do not know at the present moment who their county councillors are, although these will be the men on the health committee, to carry out the new functions of the county council. I ask the Minister to find some via media, some way out, and not entirely to pension off these authorities by transferring these functions from them. Many of these authorities are autonomous bodies, very compact in character. They know their own people very well and they have carried out health services with a great body of opinion, as well as of effort, behind them. If the Minister transfers their functions to unknown members of the health committee of a county council, he will take away a cornerstone of the edifice which he is claiming to build by this Bill.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In rising to make my second speech on this Bill I propose to criticise it from one aspect. The Bill will do much for the welfare of many people in this country, but I feel bound to support the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). We would all accept the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend the Minister, I think, that the vital consideration in this matter is that of the individual patient, and not any vested


interest of a local authority. None of us would differ from the Minister on that point. What is worrying us is how we are to improve this machinery by drawing this wholly artificial distinction between county boroughs and non-county boroughs. I regard it as indefensible to say that because a local authority is a county borough, partly through an accident of history, it must be efficient and competent to carry out the duties required under the Bill. It is equally indefensible to say that because an authority is a non-county borough, it is not suitable to discharge the functions required by the Bill.
We are not suggesting that all non-county boroughs should be empowered to discharge these functions. The Clause is a purely permissive one. Nobody would suggest that the boroughs of Eye, with a population of less than 2,000, and of Winchelsea, with less than 1,000, should discharge the functions referred to in this Bill, but we do suggest that there are certain local authorities which by their experience and record have proved themselves to be capable administrators of the kind of function which the Minister has reserved in this case solely for the county boroughs and county councils. We are prepared to see the county boroughs and county councils keep the rights which the Minister is giving them, but other local authorities ought to have an opportunity to prove that they are equally able to discharge these functions under the Bill. The point is that the standard to be maintained must be laid down from above, but that the maintenance of that standard in everyday running, should be left to the men and women on the spot. So far as I understood the Minister, he criticised the non-county boroughs partly because they were old. He did not think that was, in itself, sufficient justification for our argument, and I am in agreement with him, but he went on to say that they were too small and that their rateable value was not great enough to enable them to discharge these functions. Other hon. Members have pointed to the illogicality of that observation. What the Minister is proposing is this: that the county borough of Canterbury, which has a population of less than 20,000, should be empowered to perform functions which are denied to the non-county borough of Willesden, which has a population of 150,000. Rut-

land is to be allowed to perform functions which the Minister refuses——

Mr. Bevan: I am sure the hon. Member does not desire to mislead the House. If he will read the Bill, he will see that when county boroughs are so small that they cannot discharge their duties, special provision is made.

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the intervention. If anything, it strengthens our case. If it is possible to discriminate against county boroughs, it should be equally possible to do so in the interests of non-county boroughs.
I have said that it is illogical to draw this distinction between county boroughs and non-county boroughs. I refuse to believe that there is an optimum size for a local authority unit. There are four tests one should apply. The first is that the local authority should be of a compact and convenient geographical area. Secondly, it should have a population roughly in proportion to its size. Third, it should have adequate financial resources at its disposal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), I shall await with interest the proposals of the Parliamentary Secretary at a later stage for the reform of local government finance. The fourth test—it is the most important of all—is that a local authority should have behind it a tradition of local pride and civic consciousness. The Minister, with the great reputation which he enjoys in local government, knows as we do how difficult it is to rouse interest in local government. We shall find it far more difficult to arouse interest in our non- county boroughs if the centre of government is removed to a more remote place where the county authority has its seat.
7.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. T. J. Brooks), like myself, is a Yorkshire-man. I am sure that on that ground, if on no other, the Minister will acquit us of any desire of trying to base this argument on grounds of emotion. But there is one side of the argument which is essentially a human problem. In the Minister's proposal, the responsibility for maternity and child welfare is to be taken away from the non-county boroughs and given to the county authorities. I am sure the Minister will agree that maternity and child welfare are not only matters of chromium


and white enamel and of vitamins and cod liver oil, valuable as those are, but that there is an important psychological factor. The people who administer the service have to know the local conditions in which the mother and child live, and their family circumstances. Those are important considerations. Although I appreciate that the Minister is going to set up local committees, I do not believe that these local committees will take the place of a good local authority where the members of the council know and love every man, woman and child in the ward they represent.
If the Minister persists in the course laid down in this Bill, we shall produce two results in local government. First we shall overburden the county authorities. It is well known that service on a county authority like the London County Council requires a member to devote an average of two days a week to the work, and yet we are proposing to add to the heavy duties which already fall on the county councils. Secondly, by taking away the powers from the non-county boroughs we shall take away their responsibilities and make it far more difficult to attract into local government service, whether as paid officials or as members of the councils, the right type of men and women. Unless we get the right type of men and women, we shall lose one of the most important factors in producing an efficient local government service.
The first time I spoke in this House I complimented the Minister on the adaptability and spirit of compromise which he had shown. I appeal to him tonight not to disappoint the high hopes that a new Member formed of him, and to give the non-county boroughs an opportunity of continuing the great work which many of them are doing at the present time.

Mr. Keeling: I support this Clause not as a member of the Westminster council but as Member of Parliament for a non-county borough in Middlesex. The Minister said that the remedy in the hands of a non-county borough who desired to exercise these powers was to apply to be made a county borough. That remedy is not open to any borough in Middlesex because it has been the policy of this and previous Gov-

ernments not to create any county boroughs in Middlesex. Unless the Minister is prepared to say that he will use his influence to reverse that policy, his argument cannot be applied to Middlesex. Why should powers which are given under this Bill to a county borough, however small and whatever the inefficiency of its health services, be refused to every non-county borough of Middlesex, whatever its size and however efficient it has proved itself to 'be in administering these health services? The Minister said that some non-county boroughs were backward, and talked about the chaos which would be introduced if this new Clause were accepted, but hon. Members have only to read this Clause, to see that that argument is not really relevant because it is left entirely in the hands of the Minister whether to grant these powers or to refuse them. If the borough is backward, when the council applies for delegation of powers he can refuse it, and so avoid the chaos of which he is afraid.
My second point is this. The Minister said that if he had to wait until an inquiry had been made into the possibility of delegating powers under this new Clause, it would delay the operation of the Bill. I suggest that as these powers are already being exercised, either by the county council or by the borough council, it is open to him to leave them where they are until he has considered whether any change should be made. I say that it would create much less chaos to leave them for the time being in the hands of a borough council which is already exercising them efficiently, than to transfer them at once to the county council.
The right hon. Gentleman must have been both impressed and embarrassed by the degree of support given to this new Clause from the Benches on his own side of the House, especially as those speeches in support of the Clause were very excellent ones. I therefore want to suggest to him the possibility of a compromise. He referred to the powers given under the Fourth Schedule. If hon. Members will turn to page 67 of the Bill, they will see these words in the last paragraph, paragraph 7:
The health committee of a local health authority may, subject to any restrictions imposed by the local health authority, authorise any sub-committee to exercise on their behalf any functions of the health committee.


It seems to me that if the Minister would say that he wanted that paragraph to be used, and that he was willing to consider that the sub-committee to whom those powers were delegated might, in appropriate cases, be either the health committee of the non-county borough council, or the non-county borough council itself, there would not be very much between us. Clause 21 requires every local health authority—in this case the county council—to submit a scheme to him, and he has it in his power to modify any scheme so submitted. I suggest to the Minister that he should give an assurance that he will consider sympathetically any suggestion from a non-county borough council that the scheme should, in appropriate cases, include a delegation by the local health authority to the borough council or to the health committee of that borough council. If he would accept that proposal, I should be in favour of this new Clause being withdrawn.

Mr. John Freeman: When this Debate started, I had made up my mind to support the Clause and vote against the Minister, but I am bound to say that, having listened to the speeches, and in particular, to the Minister's speech, I have changed my mind and I shall support him on grounds which are perfectly simple. In view of the warning he has given the House about the chaotic situation that would be created if this Clause were accepted, it would, I think be irresponsible on the part of any hon. Member who really wants to see this Bill on the Statute Book in the interests of the people's health to vote for this Amendment at this stage. Therefore, I propose to support the Government on this point.
Having said that, I want to give the Minister one word of warning, if I may be so presumptuous. The fears which many hon. Members, including myself, have had on this point are not doctrinaire fears. Moreover, they are fears which are intimately related to the wellbeing of the patient. We have talked a great deal in the last couple of hours about the structure of local government. What we should be considering is how the patient is to be treated. I assure the Minister, speaking in perfectly concrete terms, about the county of Hertford, and, in particular, my own constituency of Watford, that I have a certain fear at this moment that under the Bill as it is drawn at present,

some of my constituents will be less well treated than they would be if it were drawn slightly differently. Notwithstanding that, I think the Minister's argument is overriding and I shall support him. But the onus is on him, if we support him on this, to scrutinise with the utmost care the schemes which the local health authorities put forward, to make certan that major local authorities, which are not county boroughs, are not put in a ridiculously weak position by a reactionary county council such as we fear the Hertfordshire County Council might in certain circumstances prove to be.

Mr. Eccles: We have had many interesting speeches from the Benches opposite in support of this new Clause. I thought none more agreeable than the spirited defence made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) of democratic local government against Socialist centralisation. I hope he will continue in that way. The Minister began by paying a tribute to local government in general, and went on, also in general, to use rather contemptuous words about non-county boroughs. The truth is that there are some good and some bad authorities in all types of local authorities. There are some big ones and there are some small ones.

Mr. Bevan: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I spoke generally in contemptuous terms of non-county boroughs, because I think I did no such thing. It ought not to go out from this House that I did.

Mr. Eccles: I may be mistaken, but my recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman said that non-county boroughs have privileges and pageantry and very little enthusiasm for progress.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

Mr. Eccles: Well, we shall read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, but I think I am correct. There are certain local authorities exercising health functions—which will be taken away—and exercising those functions well. There is no doubt about that, and the question we have to ask is: Is it worth taking away functions which are being well exercised from a certain number of local authorities for the sake of administrative tidiness? I think it comes down to that. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) is not in his place because I was


going to appeal to him on behalf of the county of Wiltshire. There you have a town tucked up in the North-East corner of Wiltshire, a very long way from Trowbridge. There is no easy way to get to Trowbridge, where the county council sits. It is a town dependent on railway works, with its own character and which, under Part III of the First Schedule to the Education Act, has become an accepted district for carrying out education. Now, under the Minister's proposals, if he does not accept this Clause, the health services in connection with the children which will he looked after from the educational point of view by Swindon town council, will be taken away and put under the Wiltshire county council 45 miles away.

Mr. Bevan: No, it is entirely the opposite. I do not know whether the hon. Member was here when I spoke on this matter, but I explained carefully that in such matters as child health, the authority marches with the education authority.

Mr. Eccles: The care of the health of the mother is certainly taken away. The services that would look after the mother are taken away and put under the Wiltshire county council. I do not think that is a good thing. Here is a town which has its own character and its own tradition, and I believe that the patients, that is to say the people of Swindon, would be better looked after if their health services continued in the hands of the local people. I suggest that the only solid argument given by the Minister for refusing this Clause, was that it would as he said produce an administrative morass. Will it produce an administrative morass? I do not wish to go over the ground which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) traversed. He showed clearly that there would be less chaos if these services were left where they are now, subject to the Minister's sanctions. The Minister said that chaos would be caused because all sorts of small authorities would, presumably, fix up with county councils that power should be delegated to them. Then they could come to the Minister for sanction for that delegation, and he would be bombarded by these smaller authorities. I do not think that would happen. They would only come when there was really good cause.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Eccles: Under the Education Act an accepted district is defined, under two methods of calculation, by population. Could not something similar be done here to give a limit to those who have a right to apply? I think the Minister is going to throw away services which are being well run for the sake of something which is not going to be more worthwhile, and I hope he will think again. If he cannot do it exactly in the terms of this Clause, I hope he will see that the matter is put right in another place.

Mr. Sparks: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words on this new Clause. I also hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will think again about this matter. It is a very important principle, and one which deserves the earnest consideration of all hon. Members. Those who may be in favour of or against the new Clause cannot be accused of wanting to barter the welfare of the citizen in favour of any specific type of local authority. It has been said, and the Minister has heard this, that county councils are the most reactionary councils in the country.

Mr. Bevan: That is why the Conservatives support. Is it?

Mr. Sparks: I agree up to that point, but I cannot understand my right hon. Friend believing that the county councils are the best administrative authorities for this purpose. I have had about 15 years' experience of a non-county borough, and some experience of the working as between county and non-county boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) is not here at the moment, so I may say now that I have never been enamoured of the way in which the Middlesex county council has functioned. It is growing to be an overburdened, top heavy kind of burcaucratic organisation.

Dr. Morgan: Dr. Morgan (Rochdale) rose—

Mr. Sparks: My hon. Friend will have his chance later. I believe my right hon. Friend by taking away these local functions from non-county boroughs, and centralising them in the county councils, is clogging the machine. He is clogging it with matters which are important, but which could quite usefully be performed by the existing non-county boroughs.
I would like to emphasise some illustrations which have already been mentioned. The Minister said in regard to non-county boroughs that there was opportunity for them to secure county borough status. But that is not so in Middlesex. There can be no county boroughs created in Middlesex; that is established by Statute. In Middlesex, there are 15 non-county boroughs carrying out these local health functions in an efficient and up-to-date way. The largest municipal borough in Middlesex is Ealing, with a population of 155,580, and a rateable value of£1,870,000. Ealing, a non-county borough, is larger in population than any one of 63 county boroughs. I do not propose to enumerate them, but it seems rather remarkable that 63 county boroughs less in population and in rateable value, should be entrusted with the responsibility of being local health authorities under this Bill, while a non-county borough which is larger shall have its functions taken away, and centralised in the Middlesex county council machine. Ealing is also larger than any one of 21 county councils. If it can be argued that the county councils may be entrusted with the responsibility of the functions of Part III, I cannot understand why a large municipal borough like Ealing should have these functions taken away.
My own constituency of Acton is a municipal borough, one of the 15 in Middlesex. We are third from the bottom in population and rateable value. We have a population of 59,400 and a rateable value of£862,061. Yet Acton is a non-county borough larger in population and rateable value than any of nine county councils and larger in population and rateable value than any of 10 county boroughs. How can we reasonably expect a non-county borough such as those I have mentioned to accept the position that it must be deprived of the powers enumerated in Part III, in favour of counties and county boroughs very much smaller in population and rateable value? It is difficult for me, and it will be difficult for the Minister, to put up a convincing argument on those lines.
I conclude with a reference to what is specified in the various Clauses of Part III of the Bill. Clauses 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 provide for functions which are to be transferred to the county council. But the most annoying part of the whole thing is that the Minister is providing for

consultation with voluntary organisations and giving power to county councils to hand over their functions to voluntary organisations. If it is considered wise that voluntary organisations shall have these public health functions delegated to them, why cannot the functions be delegated to non-county boroughs who are already doing this work very efficiently? I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and I should be prepared to accept his judgment of the value or otherwise of accepting the Clause. He obviously knows more about the Bill's working than I do. If he feels compelled to reject the new Clause, I ask him, before the final stages are reached, to have another look at the matter to sec whether he cannot give to the non-county boroughs the same functions as he allows to be given to voluntary organisations. I feel quite sure that far from wrecking the Bill, that would help it, and make it more effective. To take away these functions from the 15 non-county boroughs in Middlesex, and place them in the hands of half a dozen officials in London, who are isolated from the locality, is crowding the county council machine with a lot of detailed local matters. That, in my view, will not be advantageous.

Mr. E. P. Smith: This Clause carries a number of names from all parts of the House attached to it; in fact, it seems a non-party Clause, but I am about to strike a rather discordant note from this side of the House in suggesting that it should be rejected. I have the honour to represent, amongst a very large rural area, three non-county boroughs. They are full of vital history and honourable traditions; and they have a great local pride in civic government. But I have received no representations from them to vote in favour of this Clause, and they are not usually backward in sending me their views. In fact, I am inclined to think that they would be dismayed were this Clause carried into effect.

Mr. Willink: Why?

Mr. Smith: I am quite well aware that the faculties in this Clause are permissive; but if the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) knew as much about ancient and rural boroughs as I do, he would soon realise that there would be a stream of competition to get in and to manage these health services, perhaps not always with


the best results, because the borough councils have not the machinery. They have not even the personnel for the task. They have quite enough to do to get on with their housing jobs. I think that the Minister has, on the whole, taken the right course in vesting the power in the county councils, which are not reactionary bodies—at least from my experience I can say that the Kent county council is not reactionary, though of course Kent is always a righteous exception. I believe that the solution of this problem is that proposed by the Minister, in having plenty of specific local representation on his regional committees.

Mr. Willink: In my view there are blemishes in this Clause, but on its main principle I shall not be content unless the Minister indicates he will look at this matter again. As I understand the Clause, it would enable a county council to delegate its powers to any non-county borough, and leave the Minister without control of that operation. I doubt whether the Minister could accept that position. Nor do I feel that it is quite appropriate for dealing with the County of London. But the Minister must have gathered that there is a very wide feeling throughout the House that some flexibility in this matter is most desirable. I feel that the Minister's attitude to this Clause discloses exactly the opposite to what he has claimed for this Bill on so many occasions—that it will be flexible to meet the circumstances in the appropriate way. It also discloses what I did not expect to find in the Minister, a certain lack of courage in dealing with decisions that might have to be made if this flexibility were to be improved.
It will be a serious thing if the Bill removes the health functions which come within the range of this part of the Measure from every local authority which is not a county council or a county borough. That is the position under the Bill as it stands. How much wiser, surely, was the procedure of the last House in the matter of education, when a population figure down to 70,000 was decided upon as appropriate for an excepted district. Who can say that it is either logical or satisfactory that all the little Welsh counties and some quite small county boroughs of between 50,000 and 100,000 people should have these im-

portant but most human and personal local functions, while non-county boroughs, which may not succeed in or may not be qualified to make applications for county borough status, because they have a population of only 80,000 or 90,000 are not to have them. As has been forcefully pointed out by some hon. Members representing Middlesex constituencies, all those large non-county boroughs in the county of Middlesex are to be quite certainly and irretrievably deprived of these functions.
7.45 P.m.
I feel that the Minister is falling into the state of rigidity which he has claimed to avoid. It should be possible for him to limit the administrative complications in the next two or three years by a comparatively simple step. This course would necessitate our consequential Amendment, under which the claims proposed by local authorities would include proposals for performing functions themselves or for delegating them, but the Minister would then have the power of approving, or disapproving, or modifying those proposals. He should intimate in advance, after consideration of what has been said today, and of other circumstances, what his general approach to such proposals would be. I, and many others, at any rate, would understand the great difficulty that exists in view of the fact that there are urban districts and rural districts as big as some county boroughs. This and other factors make the duty of the Minister of Health in this matter very difficult indeed, but he cannot doubt what is the mind of the House today, namely, that big responsible boroughs such as those in Middlesex, and others, with over 60,000 or 70,000 population—to imitate the Education Act—would properly administer these services, if the county agreed, and the Minister thought it was appropriate, or even without the agreement of the county.
I ask the Minister to look into this matter again. He said that he had considered in these proposals nothing but the interests of the patient. But he should do every one of us the credit of attributing to us exactly the same intention. A great many of us believe that the patients will be better served, in this personal service, by authorities more local than county councils. We believe that on a review of the matter the Minister would agree, if he searched his own conscience, that he


was merely resisting the whole of this because of the fear that he would be involved in an argument. Let him take his courage in both hands. Let him announce that he will not give these powers to boroughs with less than 50,000 or 70,000 population—whatever, on consideration, he thinks right—but that some measure should be introduced into the Bill which would not make it impossible to leave with thoroughly efficient authorities the services they have at present.
There is a great deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). There is the risk of a county such as Middlesex becoming as overburdened with functions as is the L.C.C. The same will happen with other county councils. The administrative changes involved in this Bill are great. Let the Minister not add to them unnecessarily. I fear that if the Minister proceeds along these lines, it will create the impression in the minds of the people of this country that what he means by local government is local government on a very large scale, with bodies very remote from their constituents. No Minister of Health wants to go down to history as one who is not a friend of local government. This Bill leaves these services to counties and county boroughs. Everything is becoming more remote. I beg the Minister, because I think that is the wish of the House, to consider the matter again.

Mr. Key: So far as I have heard this Debate, nothing new has been stated following on our discussion of an exactly similar proposition upstairs in Committee. We are covering the same old ground over and over again. I yield to nobody in this House in my interest in local government and my championship of the small local authorities, but it is not the vested interests of local authorities which must weigh with us in this business; it is the interest of the service that we are out to provide for the people.

Mr. Lipson: We are all agreed on that.

Mr. Key: When people talk of taking out of the various county areas, first, the non-county boroughs and then the large urban districts, they seem to forget that this would leave the county authority with a remnant area, and without the necessary centres of operation for the services which must be provided. That makes almost impossible the carrying out

of a competent service in the area. This is not merely a question of the cost of the services involved; it is a question of the capacity which will remain to employ the necessary competent and highly qualified staff, to provide these services in the area which is left. It appears to me that to the extent to which one robs the county area of the necessary functional centres, and the capacity for providing competent staff by taking away the non-county and large urban areas, to that extent one makes it far more difficult for the county to provide the services required.

Mr. Keeling: The Minister has twice referred to taking urban districts out of the county. There is nothing in the Clause about urban districts; it refers only to boroughs.

Mr. Key: I am aware that it refers only to boroughs, but once we have admitted the small non-county boroughs of 10,000 and 15,000 population, in comparison with urban areas with a population of over 100,000, we are up against a proposition which it is impossible to maintain. Moreover, there is nothing in the composition of the non-county borough, compared with the highly competent urban district council, which makes it necessary that they should have these powers. The point I want to emphasise is this would make it possible for a large number of authorities—even if it never extended beyond the non-county boroughs—to bring in questions of delegation of powers, which would postpone indefinitely the time when this Bill could come into active operation. It is because we have a great administrative task to face that I am certain that any attempt to do this would jeopardise the interests of the people and the successful effect of this Bill. To my own friends on this side of the House I say that in this matter they have to show that they have confidence in the Minister and his administration and their intention to see that efficiency is maintained in the instrument which is chosen to carry out the services in the interests of everyone. I hope this Clause will be resisted.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will now come to a decision. In view of the long discussion which took place on the Committee stage, I almost had doubts about calling this Clause at all. We have


now had a very long discussion on Report. I, therefore, hope the House will come to a decision.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 218.

Division No. 262.
AYES.
7.57 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Nutting, Anthony


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, H. Wilson
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Osborne, C.


Astor, Hon. M.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pitman, I. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A,
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Butcher, H. W
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Byers, Frank F.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clarke, Col. R. S.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss H. G. (.English universities)



Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Studholme, H. G


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D. 
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A, F.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Follick, M.
Maude, J. C
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Lipson and Mr. Lang




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Clitherow, Dr R.
Foot, M. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Collick, P.
Foster, w. (Wigan)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collins, V. J
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Alpass, J. H.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gallacher, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Gibbins, J.


Austin, H. L.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gibson, C. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Corvedale, Viscount
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bacon, Miss A
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, C. F.


Balfour, A.
Daggar, G.
Grierson, E.


Barstow, P. G
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Barton, C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Battley, J. R.
Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Belcher, J. W.
Deer, G.
Guy, W. H.


Bellenger, F. J.
Delargy, Captain H. J
Hale, Leslie


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Diamond, J.
Hardy, E. A.


Bing, G. H. C
Dobbie, W.
Harrison, J.


Binns, J.
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Blenkinsop, A
Donovan, T.
Haworth, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bottomley, A. G.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dumpleton, C, W.
Herbison, Miss M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Dye, S.
Hewitson, Capt. M


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Holman, P.


Brown, George (Belper)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Horabin, T. L.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
House, G.


Buchanan, G.
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J.


Burden, T. W.
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Fairhurst F.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Farthing, W. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Champion. A. J.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Irving, W- J.




Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Keenan, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Kenyan, C.
Pearson, A,
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Key, C. W.
Perrins, W.
Thurtle, E.


Kinley, J.
Popplewell, E.
Tiffany, S.


Lavers, S.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Titterington, M. F.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Tolley, L.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. H,
Turner-Samuels, M.


Leslie, J. R.
Randall, H. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.
Usborne, Henry


Lindgren, G. S
Rankin, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McAdam, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Viant, S. P.


McGhee, H. G
Reeves, J.
Walkden, E.


McGovern, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Walker, G. H.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Richards, R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Ridealgh, Mrs, M.
Warbey, W. N.


McLeavy, F.
Robens, A.
Watkins, T. E.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mallalieu, J. P W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Marshall F. (Brightside)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Messer, F.
Shurmer, P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Moody, A. S.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Willis, E.


Mort, D. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Moyle, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilson, J. H.


Nally, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Naylor, T. E.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Woodburn, A.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Stamford, W.
Woods, G. S.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham. E.)
Yates, V. F.


Orbach, M.
Stross, Dr. B.
Zilliacus, K.


Paget, R. T.
Stubbs, A. E.



Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Hannan


Parker, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Treatment by general medical practitioners.)

The Minister may allow any general medical practitioner to make arrangements for the examination and treatment of his patients whether they he private patients or patients in respect of whom he has undertaken to provide personal medical services under this Act at any hospital within the region of the Regional Hospital Board for the area in which he is practising in which accommodation is set aside for such examination and treatment by general medical practitioners either free of charge or on payment in part or in full of such charges as may be prescribed.—[Mr. J. S. C. Reid.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The principle which has been enunciated on a number of occasions by the Minister is that any person is entitled to take any part of the comprehensive medical service while rejecting other parts. For example, he can take the free ambulance service, even if he takes no other part of the comprehensive service, and, accordingly, he can take the free State hospital service, even if he does not take the services of a medical practitioner who is in the scheme. That is admitted,

but, when we come to work it out, we come to a curious anomaly, which this new Clause is designed to obviate.
The position is that, if one goes to the State hospital, one can go in one or other of three ways. One can go to the free hospital service; one can go to the small ward or part of a hospital in which one pays a part, but not the whole, of the cost of one's reception; or one can go to the pay block, where one pays the whole cost of one's reception. In either case, one ought to have a free choice of doctor and specialist, if one wants them. I think that the specialist position is, subject to one matter to which it would not be relevant to refer here, reasonably well met, because the Bill does make provision for specialists having beds in pay blocks so that patients can employ any specialist outside the scheme while taking the hospital service. That is very proper, and, indeed, it was admitted that the Bill would not work on any other basis, but, when we come to the doctor, it is rather different. The Minister has admitted that it is proper for the doctor always to be allowed to go in and follow the patient into the hospital, and I think that is common ground in all parts of the House.
Accordingly, if the doctor is in the State medical service, then he is entitled to go into the hospital and see his patient, or, if it is an ailment which does not require specialist treatment but which can be treated by the doctor himself, he is entitled to treat his patient in the State medical hospital, although, no doubt, there would be the staff there which could treat it if the doctor did not come in. When we have a doctor who is part-time in the State service and part-time taking paying patients outside the State service, the Minister has, I understand, very properly agreed that that doctor can follow not only the patient who does not pay into the hospital but also his paying patient on the same basis. If we have a doctor who has some paying patients and some who do not pay, the position of the patients concerned, in regard to the attendance of that doctor in hospital, is identical, and, if that is so, it is, in our view, quite right.
But now we come to a doctor who is not in the State service at all. The Minister has sometimes attempted to say, without any real ground, as I think, that we on this side have not put the interests of the patients first, but here is a case where we are putting the interests of the patient first, and, indeed, exclusively. What is the difference between a paying patient who employs a doctor who is part-time in the State service and a paying patient who employs a doctor not in the State service at all? From the patient's point of view—and it is that on which I concentrate—there is no difference at all. In either case, that patient is employing a doctor outside the State service. It is quite irrelevant, from the point of view of the patient's relationship with his doctor, but it so happens that, in the one case, that doctor will have some patients under the scheme, and, in another case, completely the same so far as the patient is concerned, the doctor will have no patients under the hospital scheme.
We say that the relationship between the paying patient and the doctor in these cases should be identical, and that the paying patient should have some right to the services of his doctor, whom he pays, in hospital, irrespective of whether the doctor has some other nonpaying patients or not. That is the basis of this new Clause. We say that the Minister may allow any general medical

practitioner to treat his patients in hospital, that is to say, not only the doctor in the State service; I think he is reasonably well covered apart from this new Clause, but the new Clause makes it clearer so far as he is concerned.
We were told that, in future, there would be certain hospitals, or certain parts of hospitals, where treatment would be given by general practitioners for ailments which do not require the services of a specialist. That seems to me to be a good arrangement and it is common ground that, where a patient suffers from one of those ailments and his doctor is working under the scheme, he will follow the patient into hospital, if the patient so desires, and will give the treatment there. Everybody will agree that it is highly desirable that a patient should not be first under one doctor, then under another and, finally, revert to the first for his convalescence. That sort of thing is apt to lead to difficulties. The patient should complete his treatment under the one doctor.
That applies equally in the interest of the patient whether the relationship between the patient and the doctor is a fee paying one or not. We want to make the position perfectly clear as, otherwise, if there is a fee paying patient who is a wealthy man and who wishes to be attended in hospital but does not happen to suffer from an ailment where the services of a specialist are essential, he will employ a specialist unnecessarily in order to obtain the attention of his own doctor who can, of course, come in with the specialist. That is provided for. If a patient goes into a paid block where a specialist has private beds, then, as I understand it, that specialist can allow the doctor who is working under him to come in if he wishes. That is not denied, and it means that a patient will employ a specialist unnecessarily in order to get what he wants. But, if a patient is not wealthy, he will be put to a great deal of trouble and expense in order to come under the wing of a specialist. There is a later Amendment which gives the privilege of these beds set aside in paid blocks not only to specialists, who are provided for in the Bill, but also to medical practitioners on the staff of a hospital. But that does not meet our point because there will not be many practitioners, other than specialists, on the staff of a hospital. Therefore, that Amendment goes only a very short way to meet our point, although it does, logic-


ally, lead up to it. I shall be interested to hear any distinction which the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to draw.
The point on which there is the most obvious illogicality, as matters stand at present, is the one to which I referred a moment ago, namely, that the fee paying patient gets different treatment according to whether his doctor has some free patients or not. That is wholly illogical, and I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to show any reasonable justification for such fee paying patients being treated differently just because one of their doctors has some free patients.

Dr. Morgan: One doctor is under contract and the other is not.

Mr. Reid: That is not the point. I would ask the hon. Member to try to follow my argument. I am looking at the matter from the point of view of the patient, as we have been told to do by the Minister. I could understand the Minister saying that if any patient is stupid enough to pay a fee he is not going to get the benefit of the scheme. But he has not said that, and we are glad that he has not. But, having said that the service can be taken piecemeal and that a patient need not take all the service, then, I say, the fee paying patient has the right to get into hospital. He also has the right to get into hospital under the best possible conditions, namely, that he is followed there by his own doctor. It is admitted by the Minister that that is the best possible condition. That being so, I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say why this unfortunate patient should be treated in this way and should not have the best available advice merely because of the difference in the position of the doctors.

8.15 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not making his point very clearly. A doctor is under contract with a patient who is on his list and is not entitled, in his general practice, to charge such a patient. What is apparently intended under this new Clause is that if the patient wants to go into hospital, his general practitioner, who could not charge him when he was an ordinary patient outside, could charge him a fee the moment he gets him into hospital.

Mr. Reid: I had hopes that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and other hon. Members who were present

during the Committee stage of this Bill would understand without my going into the most complete detail. However, as there seems to be some misunderstanding, I will make it as clear as I can. I am not talking about the patient who is on a doctor's list, because this does not really affect him directly. At the moment, I am talking about.——

Dr. Morgan: The proposed new Clause says:
…for the examination and treatment of his patients whether they be private patients or patients in respect of whom he has undertaken to provide personal medical services under this Act…

Mr. Reid: I thought I had made it clear at the beginning of my remarks that we had worded the proposed new Clause in that general form because we thought it made the position of the patient on the list clearer, and not because it made any essential difference to his position. As a matter of fact, I do not think that it does. It merely makes it clearer. Where it does make a difference is in regard to the fee paying patient. We all agree, I believe, that, if a patient goes on to a doctor's list, that doctor cannot charge him, whether he treats him in or out of hospital. I am dealing with the patient who chooses to employ his own doctor on a fee paying basis.
I have tried to point out that the Minister has not said that such a patient is to be excluded altogether from the scheme. That patient is entitled to get into hospital free if he wishes, but his own doctor is not allowed to follow him into hospital. It is that restriction with which I quarrel. The Minister has landed himself into the illogical position where, if the doctor on whose list I am not and to whom, therefore, I pay a fee, happens to have a list, he can follow me into hospital and charge me a fee, but, if he does not happen to have a list, he cannot. Because I am paying, he cannot walk into the hospital and look after me. The matter is wholly irrelevant, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to justify such a position. I can see no justification for it at all. It means that a fee paying patient will get better treatment because the doctor attending him on a fee paying basis happens to have, somewhere else, a list of other patients. It may have relevance from the doctor's point of view, but it has none from the patient's. We are


adjured to look at this from the patient's point of view, and it is because that is so that I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this proposed new Clause and thus remove a glaring and unjust anomaly from the Bill.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has explained this new Clause to the satisfaction of the House, although it is a very difficult Clause to explain. It proposes to give the inalienable right of free choice which has been promised over and over again during the Second Reading and Committee stages. If this Clause is not accepted I cannot see how there will be a free choice of doctor under this scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend has given a particular case. There may be a large number of panel patients who choose another doctor of whose panel they are not members. There must be hundreds of such people, and they will be the private patients. They will be entitled to be treated privately. In Committee the Minister was rather reluctant to accept a proposition that doctors who are outside the scheme should have the right of access to hospitals. I hope the Minister will reconsider that point, because otherwise the scheme will be most restrictive in its effects on a number of practitioners. The Minister's view was that he freely allows everybody to come into the scheme, but that a lot of doctors may remain outside and, therefore, sabotage it. My feeling is that the majority of general practitioners will come into the scheme. I do not think they will strike, although there will be a certain number of practitioners who will wish to be paid by private patients. Some are getting on in years and some are semi-retired. If they are deprived of the right of access into the hospitals as general practitioners, we shall deprive the subject of the right of treatment by the doctor of his choice.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this Clause favourably, because there are a large number of hospitals where there are no specialists available, and the general practitioners in the areas of those hospitals have been accustomed to have access to those hospitals for many years. Surely, just because the Minister is taking over a hospital he does not intend to deprive one or two general practitioners in the area of the right of

access to that hospital where they have been treating the patients for a number of years. That would be a serious hardship not only to the doctor but to the sick person, and he will be depriving a large number of chronic cases of the opportunity of getting hospital treatment if this Clause or something similar is not accepted.

Mr. Key: This again is a subject which was debated fully in Committee upstairs. We had in Clause 5, Subsection (2), a provision whereby a specialist who was serving on the staff of one of the hospitals which was provided in the hospital service, could treat his private patients in the hospital on the undertaking that he was inside the national service. The point that was raised in Committee was that there was no reason for restricting that facility to the specialist, but that it might well be extended to the general practitioner who could look after his private patients inside the general practitioner hospital. When that matter was discussed my right hon. Friend undertook to look into it, and as a result there is an Amendment on the Paper which carries out that undertaking. The Amendment is to Clause 5 and extends to the general practitioner the same power as is given to the specialist of attending his private patients in a hospital, on the understanding that in both cases—in the case of the specialist and in the case of the general practitioner —they are in the national service.
In this new Clause we are asked to give that facility to the general practitioner who is not in the national service. What we are asked to say is that he can stand entirely outside the national service but that all the facilities which are provided in the hospital can be made available to him so that he may build up a big private practice outside the national service. That is a thing that we are not prepared to do. So far as his patients are concerned, they can be admitted to the hospital, but if their 'practitioner is not in the national service they must be put under the care of a specialist or a general practitioner who is in the national service.

Mr. Linstead: The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken with a good deal of vehemence in opposition to this new Clause, and possibly in some sections of the House his arguments have sounded convincing. I think those Members who


have indicated their approval of what he has said, and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary himself, have overlooked one vital point in Clause 5 which will still remain after it has been amended as the Minister proposes. The Minister proposes to amend Clause 5 in such a way as to allow a general medical practitioner on the staff of a hospital to have his patients in a general practitioner hospital. But the Parliamentary Secretary did not use those words when he was speaking just now. He insisted on talking about a general medical practitioner who was in the service, and I think that it is very important that we should know whether the phrase "in the service" means the same thing as "on the staff of the hospital."

Mr. Key: I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer now. Where the general practitioner is looking after his accredited patients in a general practitioner hospital, he is regarded as being on the staff of the general practitioner hospital in which he looks after his patients under the scheme.

Mr. Linstead: May I pursue that point a little further? This is really an important point and it requires elucidation. Are we to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that every general practitioner practising within the area served by a general practitioner hospital is, by virtue of practising there, automatically regarded as being on the staff? [HON. MEMBERS: Of course not."] If the answer is "No," it means that there will be a certain number of general practitioners practising under this scheme who will not be able to follow their insured patients into a general practitioner hospital because there will be a certain number who will be in the service but not on the staff of the hospital. I did not understand that from the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary gave, but apparently that is the view taken on the benches behind him. I repeat my question to the Parliamentary Secretary: Are we to assume that every general practitioner in the service is to be regarded as being on the staff of the general practitioner hospital serving that area?

Mr. Key: Every general practitioner serving in an area will have the opportunity of following his patients into the general practitioner hospital. If he does so he will be regarded as being on the staff of the general practitioner hospital.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Regional Board for Wales.)

The Minister shall by order constitute a Regional Hospital Board for Wales for the purpose of administering hospital and specialist services in Wales and the provision of the said services shall be associated wit's the University of Wales.—[Mr. Emrys Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this proposed new Clause is to make sure that, when the regions are framed, Wales is treated as an individual region. Subject to what I have to say, I think that is the wish of the people concerned, and of medical opinion in the Principality. I recognise that there are, and will be for a period of years, some practical difficulties if this region is to be administered with headquarters at Cardiff, particularly so far as North Wales is concerned, because the bulk of the consultant service at the moment is provided from Liverpool. What I am anxious about is, that the rural area shall have an adequate medical service. At the moment there is a woeful shortage of beds, and there is no area more in need of an adequate health service. In North Wales at the moment consultants are summoned from Liverpool. That is not an adequate substitute for an adequate health service.
For a while there may be transitory or temporary arrangements. When these arrangements have been sorted out, I have no doubt it will be practicable to administer this scheme with headquarters at Cardiff, and with, say, a sub-area in North Wales, which will enable us to develop to the full an adequate health service. We are looking forward, not merely to a health service but to adequate and full employment plans to prevent the decline of population which is confronting us, which is one of the worrying features of the economic life of that part of the country. It will come to nothing unless we also have an adequate health service. We shall not get that in North Wales if we are tied up with the populous district of the North-West, but we shall have it, if Wales is administered as one region.


This shows a most pleasing confidence in North Wales towards our brethren in the South. It shows we are at one in the matter. I do ask for sympathetic consideration from the Minister.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I beg to second the Motion.
I shall not keep the House long, because the Minister is fully conversant with the considerations involved. We are in a special position in Wales but I do not think I need detain the House on that aspect of the matter. Naturally, we want a separate region from a sentimental point of view. I qualify that by saying that there will be serious administrative difficulties in North Wales in connection with this Bill when it comes into force. A committee has been set up which has made special recommendations in regard to North Wales. In my submission North Wales, from the point of view of transport and from the point of view of its history and characteristics, is quite unsuitable to come under the capital of Wales in regard to hospital administration. For many years it has depended on Liverpool and Manchester as the sources of supply of hospital accommodation and specialist services, and although there are some people in Wales who think that North Wales, in the fullness of time, might have a university and a medical college of its own, personally I do not think the population will ever justify that, in any reasonable period of time. When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman makes Wales a region, as I hope he will, I hope he will take adequate steps to see that it is joined with another region in the North Western area so that its patients and its sick can draw an adequate provision of specialist services from an area nearer than South Wales.

Mr. Bevan: I trust that the promoters of this new Clause will not press it, because, as they will realise, another opportunity will be provided for considering this matter. Upstairs I accepted the suggestion that the delineation of the areas of the Regional Boards shall be subject to Parliamentary approval. Not the constitution of the Regional Boards, but their areas, because obviously there is vital interest in the areas the Regional Boards shall cover. There will, therefore, be a further opportunity of considering this matter. I do not want to write

into the Bill the area of any particular Board, because very many details will have to be considered before a particular board is established. I think that hon. Members need not fear that the solution for Wales will depart very far from their own desires. As the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) said, there are some peculiar difficulties; the medical gathering ground for North Wales is Liverpool, and although Wales has a sentimental and traditional unity, God has divided it geographically in a very unfortunate fashion, although with considerable beauty. The result is that medical requirements for Mid-Wales are provided from one area, for North Wales from another, and for South Wales from another. At the same time we do not want the Welsh people, as a whole, to be denied the advantages of being associated with universities, and so we shall have to work out a solution of the Welsh problem which pays proper regard to the peculiarities of the area. I am sure that when we reach our solution, it will be one which will find universal approval.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Motion?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I do not wish to withdraw it, but I do not wish to press it.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Central Health Services Council and Standing Advisory Committees.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, after "Act," to insert:
or any services provided by local health authorities in their capacity as such authorities.
When we were considering the matters on which the Central Council would be in a position to give advice to the Minister, it was stressed that we had perhaps rather restricted, in the present draft, the scope of those inquiries. We have, therefore, determined to ask that it should be extended to cover the services provided by local health authorities, not merely those enumerated in this Bill, but others that they may have in their capacity as health authorities under other Acts, including for instance matters dealing with child life protection, mental deficiency and so on. We think this extension will give full and free scope to the Central Advisory


Council to advise the Minister on all matters affecting this health service.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This is, in our view, an improvement, but it does leave one small point untouched, which the Minister may think worth considering. The scope of the Central Council now includes services provided under this Measure and services provided by local authorities, hut, as we go on, we hope that there will be questions arising about the possibility of providing new services. It seems a pity to limit the Central Council from considering those matters, and I suggest that when the Bill goes to another place, the Minister might consider widening this provision so as to set the Central Advisory Council free to consider, not only the services provided now, but new services, not provided by anybody as yet.

Mr. Key: The Clause at the present time relates to "services provided under this Act." If these services are extended as a result of developments, then it will be open to the Central Advisory Council to give advice on the extended services.

Mr. Reid: I am talking about new services. This Bill does not contemplate, at this moment, new services that may grow up owing to the development of medicine. This Bill may not be wide enough to cover them.

Mr. Bevan: I merely rise for the purpose of reinforcing my hon. Friend's point. I do not want any hints to be dropped that Amendments in another place of this character will be welcome. I should imagine that the services provided in the Bill are wide enough in themselves, to provide a sufficient health service, that will cover, practically, any eventuality that may occur in the future, and that, therefore, the Central Council will not be limited at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 25, leave out "they," and insert "the Council."—[Mr. Key.]

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "provided under this Act," and to insert "aforesaid."
This extends the functions of the standing advisory committees in a similar manner to those of the Central Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(4) It shall be the duty of a standing advisory committee constituted under this Section to advise the Minister and the Central Council upon such matters relating to the services with which the committee are concerned as they think fit and upon any questions referred to them by the Minister or Central Council relating to those services, and, if the committee advise the Minister upon any matter, they shall inform the Central Council, who may express their views thereon to the Minister.
This Amendment meets the point made in Committee upstairs, where the objection was raised that the advisory committees set up under the Central Council would give their advice directly to the Minister, by-passing, as it were, the Central Council. This makes provision that the Central Council shall have the opportunity of reviewing and commenting upon, whatever advice is given to the Minister by the advisory committees.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision of hospital and specialist services.)

8.45 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out "of the following descriptions, that is to say," and to insert "including."
I move this Amendment in the absence of my right hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who is in America. This is one of those rather difficult Amendments, of the cart before the horse variety. It is intended as a preliminary to a longer and more important Amendment to Clause 16, which, I understand, by your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may now be called. The first of the Amendments has been put down at the request of the Vice-Chancellors and medical faculties of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. In the Clause the Minister is bound to provide certain specified requirements, accommodation and other services, but these requirements do not include teaching and research, and in the view of the universities someone should have the duty of providing the facilities for teaching and research. It is suggested in a later Amendment that this could be done by the teaching hospitals in consultation with the universities. At this moment that is as far as I can go on this Amendment without being out of Order. Whether the Minister will approve our later proposals


we cannot tell, but even if he cannot, I hope that this Amendment may commend itself to him. It seems to give greater powers and duties than he already has, and some think it gives him too many, but that will be limited by the last Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would nor ask the House to believe that this Amendment and the others connected with it are necessarily in the best possible form. I do not feel quite sure about that, but perhaps the House will permit me very slightly to elaborate the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert). I think the point the universities feel is that, on the face of it, there ought to be some provision for teaching and research. I think I am right in saying that as the Bill stands, there is no provision about teaching or research. They feel that, until the contrary may be shown, there is a presumption that the universities ought to have some part, and even some initiatory part in it, and I think it was with this presumption in mind that they drafted this Amendment.
I suppose it would be proper to construe line 35, in Subsection (1), to mean that the Minister cannot provide a service which is not "of the following descriptions." The descriptions indicate all the services the Minister can provide, and therefore anything not in the descriptions is something presumably which he cannot provide. I think that is the first step in the argument. The second step is that if we simply increase the "following descriptions" by adding teaching and research, the effect, if I understand the Bill properly, would be that, thereupon, teaching and research would come under the direct control of the Regional Health Boards and of the governors of hospitals. Therefore the suggestion is that instead of putting them here, we should put them in at another point in the Bill, so that they would not come under the direct and almost exclusive control of these authorities, but come under some kind of initiatory control of the universities. Meanwhile, to make that possible, we are omitting the words "of the following descriptions," and substituting "including," and in line 44 substituting "specifically mentioned in" for "provided under." I hope that explains the intention behind these Amendments, and

that even if they may, not be held to be the best possible way of meeting that intention, it may be considered that this is not an unreasonable desire, and that some steps will be taken towards meeting it.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I should like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friends. I submit that this Amendment has a claim for favourable consideration on its own merits, quite apart from its relation to a subsequent university Amendment which will be moved later. The Bill as it stands contains words which are definitely limiting. The Minister can only provide the accommodation and services which fall within "the following descriptions," that is to say, the three classes of accommodation and services which are enumerated in the Clause. It may well be that in future, with the development of health and hospital services generally, it will be desirable to add to these particular services. The Minister has claimed that he is entitled to provide to a large extent in this matter by Regulation, for the very good reason that otherwise points which were not substantial might need fresh legislation. Therefore, I feel that it is in his own interests—and we all consider his interests first and foremost—to substitute the word "including" for the words
of the following descriptions, that is to say.
On these grounds, and in order that it may point the way to a subsequent Amendment, I trust that the Minister may consider the change of words as proposed.

Mr. Bevan: It is extremely difficult for us to discuss a general principle in connection with this Amendment. It might be for the convenience of the House if we could have a rather wider discussion, because the hon. Members who have addressed themselves to this Amendment have not been able to express clearly what they desire to achieve. I cannot accept this Amendment, and, at the same time, it is difficult for me to discuss on the Amendment the principle which hon. Members have raised.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not know whether I should be in Order, but perhaps it would assist the Chair—if it is not arrogant of me to assist the Chair, as well as the Government Front Bench—if I made a suggestion. I have some hope that the Amendment on Clause 16 may be in


Order, and may, therefore, be called, if the proviso which it contains is omitted. I have some reason to hope that that course may be possible. I do not know whether it would he within the Rules of Order to discuss that Amendment along with this one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I understand that it is Mr. Speaker's intention to call the Amendment to Clause i6 with a certain proviso omitted. I do not know how far it will be possible to discuss the matter then, but, quite clearly, we cannot discuss Clause 16 now without some special agreement.

Mr. Bevan: I shall have to resist this Amendment. It is an attempt to strengthen very considerably the position of the universities. I should have thought that the position of the universities had been firmly established in the structure itself. The effect of this Amendment, as I understand it, would be to deprive the boards of governors of the right to conduct clinical research and to confine it to the universities.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is not right.

Mr. Bevan: The best thing that I can suggest is that we negative this Amendment and discuss the Amendment to Clause 16, and if the will of the House so decided, then we should have to accept consequential Amendments. I cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. Eccles: I hope that the Minister will refuse this Amendment. With the greatest respect to the universities—and I struggled through Oxford University myself—I understand that this Amendment would give the Minister all sorts of powers about which we do not know anything. The word "including" might be used in any way, to provide all kinds of other services. I think that the Minister has enough powers already. I am very willing to discuss the later Amendment to Clause 16, if it is called, because it seems a very sensible one, but I hope we shall not accept this Amendment to Clause 3.

Sir A. Herbert: As it has been suggested by the Minister that we might discuss this question on the Amendment to Clause 15, and in the hope that if that Amendment is defeated here, it will by some magic be passed in another place,

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Accommodation for private patients.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out "specialist," and to insert "medical practitioner."
This is the Amendment to which I referred when dealing with a previous new Clause and which, together with others coming later on, carries out what I there made plain—the fact that the medical practitioner will be able to deal with patients treated in a general practitioner hospital.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 2, leave out ''specialist," and insert "medical practitioner."

In line 4, leave out "specialist," and insert "medical practitioner."—[Mr. Key.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Endowments of voluntary hospitals.)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out "Minister," and to insert:
Hospital Management Committee constituted under this Act in whom the management and control of such hospital is vested.
The purpose Of this Amendment and the two which follow is to provide that endowments shall not go into a general pool, but shall be kept in the nearest place in which they can be kept for the new service, namely, in the hands of the hospital management committee in whom the management and control of the endowment hospital is vested. Before I come to the general question of the justice or desirability of this transfer of endowments away from the area they were intended to benefit, I should like to advert for a moment to a topic discussed this afternoon, because it is relevant here. I agree to the full with the Minister that it is highly desirable during the next two years that people should be encouraged to continue taking an interest in and contribute to their local hospital. So far as the teaching hospitals are concerned, they have a sound inducement to do so, because the funds of a teaching hospital are to remain with the new teaching hospital under the


new management. Therefore, every penny that can be subscribed today to a teaching hospital will mean a penny more for that hospital two years hence and for all time thereafter. That unfortunately is not the position with regard to the other hospitals, because, unless the Minister accepts this Amendment—and I put this as a strong reason for his doing so—the result of subscribing to a non-teaching hospital is that that hospital will have more funds when the appointed day comes two years hence, but then the funds are taken away from it and the whole district. Thus there is not the same inducement to people to continue subscribing to non-teaching hospitals as to continue subscribing to teaching hospitals. I very much regret that, and I think the Minister is making a great mistake in discouraging it in this way, particularly as he wants this form of subscription. What possible argument can there be for taking this money away from the place where its donors intended it to be?
In the past, Parliament and the law courts have always worked on the principle that where a donor gives money —whether much or little makes no difference—for a particular purpose, and it becomes impossible to carry out that bequest exactly in its original terms, one searches for the nearest equivalent, arid one does not divert the money from its original purpose more than one can help. That seems to be good common sense as well as good law and good Parliamentary practice.
9.0 p.m.
It would be extremely easy to put the funds of the non-teaching hospitals at the disposal of the hospital management committee which deals with a particular hospital, or with a group of hospitals. If there is a big hospital there may be a committee which deals with that hospital alone; if there is a smaller hospital, the committee will deal with that hospital and one or two others as well. But they will be all in the same region, and in most cases the donors of money to hospitals intended to benefit the people of their town or district. They may have had a special love for a hospital, and if that were so, that could not any longer be continued, if we accept, as we must accept now, the principle of the hospital management committee, because the hospital will no longer be an independent

unit, but will be a part of a local unit. Surely, therefore, the Minister is wholly disregarding, unnecessarily, the wishes of the people who gave the money if he takes the money right away from the district when there is a perfectly easy way of leaving it there. I cannot understand what is wrong with leaving the money in the district which it was intended to benefit. There is plenty of use for it there.
There is another possible reason for diverting money from its original purpose, namely, that it would be wasted if it was kept to its original purpose—and one ought not to waste money or resources. But nobody can suggest that keeping these endowments in the area which they were intended to benefit would lead to any sort of waste. There is any amount of use for them in the area. It is not necessary to take them away and spread them all over the whole country. The Minister has gone out of his way to emphasise the value which funds of this sort will have in future, and he cannot now say that it would be in any way useless to leave them in their original district. I am, however, afraid that he will diminish the value of these funds very much if he spreads them all over the country. Not only will he divert them from their proper use, from the district which they were intended to benefit, but he will spread them out very thinly over the whole country.
The Minister has taken a pride in the fact that his -scheme will be a shock absorber, and will give pocket money, as he called it on one occasion. I wonder whether he has worked out how much it is. We cannot do so directly, because we do not know just how much money there is, but I should be surprised if there were£30 million of funds, apart from the teaching hospitals, and that amount, at the rates of interest now prevailing, will give considerably less than£1 million a year as expendable money under this fund. If£1 million is to be spread out over I do not know how many, but nearly half a million beds, I should think, there will not be much left. It will not be very much of a shock absorber. I am afraid that by spreading the money so widely, the Minister is taking away from its value, because he is making the amount which any particular hospital management com-


mittee may have in future so small that it will not be able to do a great deal with it.
Would it not be very much better to leave the money where it is, and enable these hospital management committees to do things outside the sealed pattern schemes of the Minister? If that way of using the funds proved to be a good one, what would happen? There would be a lead to the Ministry to go and do likewise in the other hospitals. Surely, that would be a better way of using the money. I do not want to see one particular hospital for all time better off than another under this scheme, but if there is to be pocket money, I want to see it in sufficiently large packets to enable something of use to be done with it. I very much fear that this general spread-over will seriously diminish the value of the whole thing.
Therefore, I base my case on three points. First of all, I say that it is discouraging the efforts which we all want to see to keep the hospitals going at full efficiency for the next two years, until the Minister takes them over. Secondly, I say that it is unjust and unnecessary to flout the wishes of the donors, alive and dead, who have given this money. Thirdly, I say that by spreading this money out so thinly, the Minister is seriously diminishing the good which it might do in future, and the lead which the use of it might give to him and to others to improve services all over the country.

Mr. Bevan: The principle behind this Amendment has been discussed on so many occasions that I can almost make the answer without thinking. The fact is that this money, to which so much reference is made, could quite properly and justly have been taken by the Government and passed into the Exchequer for general hospital purposes. All the money to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has referred was subscribed for general hospital purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Practically all of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about general hospitals, and not about teaching hospitals. It was donated to the hospitals to which the endowments were made for general hospital work, for general hospital services in the particular hospitals, and not for particular functions of the hospitals. The endowments of teaching hospitals are distinguished, to a very large extent, from

the endowments of general hospitals because, in the case of teaching hospitals, quite frequently the endowment is earmarked for special purposes, such as cancer research. When someone leaves money to a cottage hospital or a general hospital, it is for the purpose of that hospital, and as we are proposing to provide for the hospitals in the future, the Government would have been perfectly entitled to take that money and to use it for general hospital purposes. No one could have complained. As a matter of fact, I thought that this was a very useful means of providing both the Regional Boards and the hospital management committees with a little additional money to spend over and above what they receive from the Treasury. Therefore, I said, we will take it that way.
The first point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already be en answered this evening. I refer to his point that, by taking the money this way, we are deterring people from making contributions between now and the vesting date. As that point was disposed of in a previous discussion, I pass to the second point. The second point is that if we are to vary endowments it is desirable to try, as far as possible, not to depart more than necessary from the intention of the person making the endowment. That is clearly an arid legal point. If a man has left an endowment to a particular hospital which is a local cottage hospital with, say, 30, 40 or 50 beds, it is argued that if we say that it is no use keeping the endowment in that hospital—because even the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not ask that—and that we must divert that endowment to a general management committee presiding over a 1,000 beds, that somehow is a smaller violation of the intention. This geographical definition of qualitative violations I just cannot understand. It seems to me to be straining at something, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is to try to find some way of keeping the money where it is.
His third argument really defeated itself. It was that the whole of the sum is so small that, spread over the country, it will be so thin that it should be left where it is—no doubt so as to leave some parts of the country with no money at all. That is the effect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and that is what he said. Obviously, if one attempts to


leave the money in the area covered by a particular management committee because if it is spread over the country it will be so thin, this would have the effect of leaving some management committees with no endowments at all. Thus they would be left bereft in order that some management committees would be better off, and that is a consideration I could never accept. Furthermore, why should the fact that some areas have received benefits from well to do people be perpetuated at the expense of poorer areas? I should have thought that if the persons who made these endowments in the first instance are looking down upon our deliberations at the present time they would be very pleased that their benefactions are going to serve a wider area of humanity than was formerly the case. I suggest that this point has been very strained. I know that hon. Members are going to argue, but I would respectfully suggest that points like this, which have been discussed over and over again, upon which the mind of the House is clearly made up, and which do not raise any point of principle, are really delaying our discussions.

Major Guy Lloyd: I do not intend to delay the discussion but I have been trying very hard to see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He has been trying to interpret to the House, as he has obviously interpreted to himself, the minds of the donors of this money in the past. How can he so arrogantly assume that he can do so, and how could any one of us? I suggest that it is at least reasonable to argue that many of those donors would infinitely have preferred that the money should not in fact pass to the Minister or be administered by bureaucracy or by officialdom from Whitehall. That was why they preferred to give the money to the cottage hospital or their local hospital—in order that it might be administered by local people whom they knew well would use it in the interests of the locality.
Now we are to assume that those donors of the past were quite indifferent about who was going to have their money, and that if they were here to be asked, they would put up both hands and say that they did not mind a rap who administered it and that they were perfectly happy that it should be administered by the Minister and bureau-

cracy from Whitehall. I do not believe that there is an atom of justification for this argument that donors who intended that these endowments should be administered by local people, would give the money to be administered by the Minister or by his officials. That is the essence of our view in contradistinction with the view of the Minister.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Eccles: The Minister claims that those who have left money would not mind in the least if it were put to wider purposes than those for which they left it. On the Saturday following the Second Reading of this Bill a solicitor came to see me in Chippenham, and informed me that on the day the Bill received its Second Reading an old lady died in the Chippenham Institution leaving£100 to the Malmesbury Cottage Hospital. She had told him that she had gone to the institution, because she wished to leave the money to a hospital which she thought had done her and her friends good. Would that sort of person leave money to a hospital management committee? The answer is, clearly, that they would not. People have an affection for what they know, and here is the Minister wedded to this——

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not know to what the hon. Member is addressing himself at the present time. Is he arguing for or against the Amendment?

Mr. Eccles: There is one thing wrong with the Amendment—it does not go far enough. I think I am entitled to say so, and if I had drafted it I should have made it "to the individual hospital."

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Gentleman may have his own point of view, but he can only speak on the Amendment as drafted.

Mr. Eccles: Since the Amendment, as drafted, goes one better than what is in the Bill, I must proffer the second best—half a loaf is better than none. The fact remains that people will not leave money to the Minister. They may leave money to a hospital. Let the Minister recollect the Coal Mines Act. There we took special power in order that the national coal mines—and this is extremely relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—might continue the hospital subscriptions in their own localities. Why does a firm make a subscrip-


tion? Because the employees of the firm go to the hospitals in their immediate neighbourhood.

Dr. Morgan: They will not do it now.

Mr. Eccles: We wish to encourage them to do it now, but if this Amendment is carried, and if, say, the hospital management committee in question manages 1,000 beds which are actually serving the workers in a particular firm, we have a very good chance that that firm will continue to subscribe to the management committee.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The subject matter of this Amendment is the transfer of endowments immediately before the appointed day. I respectfully submit that this is not a discussion of the future or of endowments held before the appointed day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had taken note that the hon. Gentleman had gone into the future but I was hoping that he was coming back to the present.

Mr. Eccles: To come back to the interim between now and the appointed day, what is going to happen then? Why should not those who wish to help hospitals in their immediate neighbourhood be encouraged to do so? If these endowments are all vested it the Minister in a pool, it must be a deterrent to people to go on subscribing to their local hospitals. For that reason I oppose the Amendment, but I wish it had gone a great deal further and said "individual hospitals" instead of "management committee."

Mr. H. Strauss: This Clause is one of the two chief blemishes on the Bill. The Minister has fallen below the usual standard with which he has conducted this Bill here and upstairs in his failure to appreciate the really serious considerations, which shock some people, in regard to these two parts of the Bill. The Minister said that, had he taken over all these endowments without any conditions whatsoever, no one would have had any complaint. That shows an ignorance of the whole course of the proceedings, not only of Parliament in the past in dealing with charities, but of the Court of Chancery and of the Charity Commissioners, and the principles on which they have been compelled by the courts to act. It shows so complete a misunderstanding of what these points are that shock us on this side

of the House that, when the Minister says he cannot understand it, I think he is telling the truth.
Under this Clause, if this Amendment is not accepted, all these endowments pass to the Minister free from any restrictions whatsoever and with no proviso that the objects of the trust shall not be prejudiced. I wonder whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House would contrast that with the proviso made in the case of the teaching hospitals. There a proviso is inserted which says that, so far as practicable, those to whom the endowments are transferred shall secure that the objects of any such endowment are not prejudiced by the provisions of the Clause. Why should there be no similar provision for these charitable funds which are taken over by the Minister? Why should the Minister be immune from the proviso which he very properly insists on in the case of the teaching hospitals?
In his reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), the Minister said that, if these funds were not spread evenly over the whole country, somebody would be deprived of something. Not at all. Those people who under this scheme would not get it are those who have not got it now. Why should we disregard so entirely the wishes of donors and testators? Is. it really not at all significant that Parliament, whatever party has been in power, whenever it has found it necessary to vary the conditions of charitable gifts and bequests, has taken the utmost care not unnecessarily to disregard the wishes of donors.
I agree with the Minister in his desire that we should make rapid progress tonight, and therefore the only point on which I wish to reinforce the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead is on the point of justice. May I read to the House—because I think sometimes hon. Members take more notice of the considered judgments of the Court of Appeal than they do of past actions of this House, though I wish they would pay more respect to the past actions of this House—two short extracts from judgments of the Court of Appeal in a leading case on charitable bequests? Lord Justice Farwell stated this:
It is contrary to principle that a testator's wishes should be set aside, and his bounty administered not according to his


wishes but according to the view of the Commissioners and if it is wished that testators should continue to become 'pious founders' it is eminently desirable that no doubt should be cast on the security and permanency of their bequests.
And Lord Justice Kennedy——

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I was not in the Committee upstairs, but I read the report of it. Committees upstairs are for the purpose of saving time, and now I am listening to exactly what was said upstairs. If I had the report here, you would hear the same words and the same judgment being quoted.

Dr. Morgan: I can bear that out.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order——

Mr. Gallacher: It is repetition.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for me in my selection of Amendments, but I must confess that I do not want a repetition of the arguments used upstairs. This is a revision stage and not a repetition of the Committee stage.

Mr. Strauss: I always give full credit to the Communist Party for their desire to avoid all discussion in this House, but as long as we enjoy your protection, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I and other speakers will be diverted by the foolish and frivolous interruptions of the hon. Gentleman whose main desire is to avoid matters being discussed in this House or anywhere else. I fully recognise his preference for deciding these matters by force, but, in order to correct his foolish interruption on a point of fact, the judgment which I have just read was not read in the Committee upstairs, though the judgment which I am about to read was read. I shall now come, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's foolish interjections and frivolous point of Order, to the important judgment of Lord Justice Kennedy in the same leading case.

Mr. Donovan: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly state the name of the case?

Mr. Strauss: I am quoting from the Weir Hospital case. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] In 1910. Hon. Members opposite may one day realise that judgments which are older and older Acts of

Parliament are of importance. Some of us on this side of the House attach importance to Magna Carta. Lord Justice Kennedy said in the same leading case:
Neither the Court of Chancery nor the Board of Charity Commissioners, which has been entrusted by statute, in regard to the application of charitable funds, with similar jurisdiction, is entitled to substitute a different scheme for the scheme which the donor has prescribed in the instrument which creates the charity, merely because a coldly wise intelligence, impervious to the special predilections which inspired his liberality, and untrammelled by his directions, would have dictated a different use of his money.
As I said before, I am far from accusing the right hon. Gentleman of a coldly wise intelligence—a hotly and foolish obstinacy is very much nearer the mark. Not only has this care been taken by the Court of Chancery, but this House, no matter which party have formed a Government, has taken similar care when it has legislated in such a manner as to interfere with charitable funds or bequests. If it were absolutely necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, for the hospital part of his scheme, to do what he is doing, many people might assent, even though with great regret. But, there has been no attempt to show that it is in any way necessary. There has been no attempt to show why the Minister, when he takes over these charitable funds, should be less hound than are the teaching hospitals, by the proviso I have quoted, to see that the objects of the endowment are not prejudiced.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. and learned Member permit a question? The argument he is addressing to the House is that in ignoring the intentions of the benefactor I am in fact doing an injustice. If I left the money with the particular hospital, his position would be satisfied. If I then took the money into account in determining what particular moneys should be provided by the Exchequer would he then be satisfied?

Mr. Strauss: There are so many hypotheses in that intervention that I cannot answer all of them. I was trying to address myself to the Amendment. But I say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever he might do, I certainly think that this Clause would be improved if, when he took the money, he were bound by a similar proviso to that I have already quoted—namely, that


he should in his use of the money secure, so far as practicable, that the objects of any such endowments are not prejudiced by the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: That is precisely the point I put. If I investigated the intention of the donor and discovered that his intention was that his benefaction should be used for the maintenance of a particular hospital, and I left that benefaction there, I would, therefore, not be offending against anything which the hon. and learned Member has said. Would he, therefore, be content if I took that money into account in determining what additional moneys were needed for the hospital?

Mr. Strauss: Perhaps I might put on/ reply in the form of a question. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to take the endowments of Bart's into consideration in deciding what they need from him?

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that where it is necessary for the board of management of Bart's to divert endowments they have power under the Bill.

Mr. Strauss: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see in tomorrow morning's HANSARD that that is a complete diversion and not at all an answer to the question. [HON. MEMBERS: What is the answer?"] I will not now say what I think he will be entitled to do, or should do, under totally different Clauses in this Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am now dealing with what he is entitled to do with these endowments, and I say that he has shown no reason whatsoever why these endowments should not be dealt with on the same lines as the Court of Chancery, the Charity Commissioners and this House have dealt with endowments in the past, whenever they have found it necessary to interfere with the wishes of donors and testators.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had shown this to be completely necessary for his scheme, would at least have given a reason, although still many of us would have been sorry. But he has not submitted upstairs, or on the Floor of the House, any reason whatsoever why, when he takes over the funds, he should not be bound by a similar proviso to that which I have read As an alternative method by which we can get some respect

paid to the wishes of donors, my right hon. and learned Friend has moved the Amendment. The right hen. Gentleman has stated, as a reason for not accepting it, that he cannot accept it, and that there is no reason why he should not have taken over all endowments without any condition whatsoever. I say that he is acting both foolishly and shortsightedly.
It is not possible to show contempt, on this occasion, for the wishes of donors and testators, to show contempt for the invariable practice of this House and of the Court of Chancery, and then still expect that charitable gifts will continue to flow in future as they have done in the past. The injury to charitable bequests that that involves may be treated lightly and trivially by the right hon. Gentleman and some hon. Members opposite, but do not let them think that they can do what they are doing and be blind to the fact that they are doing something which is novel, revolutionary and injurious. They are doing something which is very serious indeed, and profoundly unwise.

Mr.Willink: It is obvious, from what has taken place on this Amendment, fiat the minds of the party opposite are unanimously in favour of the Bill—that there is no harm whatever in diverting funds from the intentions of their donors and subscribers, ancient and modern, rich and poor. Therefore, there is no real advantage in prolonging this Debate. I would, however, like to summarise our reasons for putting down this Amendment. On the Second Reading of this Bill the hospital management committees referred to in this Amendment were incapable of holding funds. It is now intended that there should be, in every locality, such a unit of hospital administration as is universally recognised to be appropriate to modern ideas, namely, a hospital or hospitals group with something which, in an urban area, will include up to 1,000 beds—the sort of hospital which will exist in a big town or for a medium sized town and the surrounding country. In these circumstances, we think it right, in relation to such funds as are held by the hospitals now, having been raised perhaps by a great town effort as a war memorial, or given by a series of distinguished citizens over the past, to consider what would be the wishes of those who subscribed to such effort, or of those who gave those funds.
If this money is spread in the doctrinaire manner proposed, all that will result will be something like an income of under£2,000 a year for each of these hospital management committees, whereas if the money was left as we propose it would range between£1,000 and£4,000 a year, sums the difference between which could be most readily and easily raised by local effort. The very differences would be a stimulus to each local effort. We cannot see any justification for flouting, despising and contemning the wishes of those donors. The other point is that this proposal is in ridiculous contrast to another provision in the Bill. Under this proposal, money given between now and the appointed day will, on the appointed day, be vested in the right hon. Gentleman, and will then be dispensed, on the advice of officers in the Ministry of Health, where these officers and the Minister between them decide that it should go. What advice would any hon. Gentleman give to somebody who said to them today, as people have already said to me, "I have a mind to benefit the local hospital in my district. Can I do so safely now? The only honest advice one can give to such a person is," No. This Bill is so ridiculously drafted that if you give your money before the appointed day the£5,000 or£100 you wish to give will be spread, at the discretion of the Minister, all over England and Wales, whereas if you wait until the appointed day, you can, under Clause 59 of the Bill, give it to the hospital management committee in your district." Could anything be a more ludicrous contradiction?
Could any two provisions be more directly designed to make those who wish to help our hospitals in the future say to themselves, "A Socialist Government have

done this once. Whatever it says in Clause 59, we believe they will do it again."If any confidence is to be raised in the minds of donors and if people, such as those I have described, who are desirous of giving money to hospitals are to be encouraged to give it, the only possible plan is to put into the Bill a provision that what is in the hands of the local hospitals at the appointed day shall go to the hospital management committee responsible for that hospital in the future.

We regard this Bill as being thoroughly bad on this subject, not only from the point of view of disregarding the wishes of those who gave money in the past, but as frustrating the wishes of those who wish to give money in the future, and as discouraging all who will to give money even after the appointed day. It is a Measure, as it stands now, which will make all charitable people believe that this House, whenever there is a Socialist majority, will take the money away from the purpose for which they wished it to be used, and have it spread according to the wishes of the Executive. The Minister said that we could not complain if all this money had been impounded for the general well-being of the hospitals. What is the point of that argument, when that is not being done? The Minister should have applied his mind to the question, Where will the money best be placed with a view to the improvement of hospitals now and in the future? We regard this as being far from a legal point. We regard it as a broad point of justice or regard for the wishes of individual citizens, and of the welfare of the hospitals in the future.

Question put, "That the word Minister ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 107.

Division No. 263]
AYES.
[9.45 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Berry, H.
Callaghan, James


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Champion. A. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Bing, G. H. C.
Chater, D.


Allen, ScholehBld (Crewe)
Binns, J.
Clitherow, Dr. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Blenkinsop, A.
Cluse, W. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Blyton, W. R.
Cobb, F. A.


Austin, H. L.
Bottomley, A. G.
Cocks, F. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Collick, P.


Ayles, W. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p't, Exch'ge)
Collindridge, F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collins, V. J


Balfour, A.
Brook, D, (Halifax)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Barton, C.
Brown, George (Belper)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Battley, J. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Corvedale, Viscount


Belcher, J. W.
Burks, W. A.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Benson, G.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Daggar, G.




Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Keenan, W
Sargood, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Key, C. W.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Deer, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lang, G.
Shurmer, P.


Delargy, Captain H. J
Lavers, S.
Silver-man, S. S. (Nelson)


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Simmons, C. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Donovan, T.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAdam, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dye, S.
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J, C.
McGovern, J.
Solley, L. J


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mack, J. D.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKay, J (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards. N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Stamford, W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Ewart, R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Swingler, S.


Fairhurst F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Farthing, W. J.
Marquand, H. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Marshall F. (Brightside)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Follick, M.
Medland, H. M.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Foot, M. M.
Messor, F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Gallacher, W.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Moody, A. S.
Thurtle, E.


Gibbins, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Tiffany, S.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Titterington, M. F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
Tolley, L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moyle, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Grey, C. F.
Nally, W.
Usborne, Henry


Grierson, E.
Naylor, T. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths. Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Walkden, E.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Noel-Buxlon, Lady
Walker, G. H.


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
O'Brien, T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Guy, W. H.
Orbach, M.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Paget, R. T.
Warbey, W. N.


Hale, Leslie
Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Watkins, T. E.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Hardy, E, A.
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harrison, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Haworth, J.
Pearson, A.
Wigs, Colonel G. E.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Perrins, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Piratin, P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hewitson, Capt. M
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Witley, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hobson, C. R.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, J. L. (Ketvingrove)


Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Randall, H. E.
Williamson, T.


House, G.
Ranger, J.
Willis, E.


Hoy, J.
Rankin, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roes-Williams, D. R.
Wilson, J. H.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Reeves, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Irving, W. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Woodbum, A


Irving, W. J
Rhodes, H.
Woods, G. S.


Janner, B.
Richards, R.
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Zilliacus K.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robens, A.



Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Captain Michael Stewart and




Mr. Popplewell




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Gage, C.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G


Baldwin, A. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grimston, R. V.


Beechman, N. A.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Harris, H. Wilson


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Butcher, H. W.
Drewe, C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Byers, Frank F.
Eccles, D. M.
Horabin, T. L.


Carson, E.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Howard, Hon. A.


Clarke, Col. R. S
Fletcher W (Bury)
Hurd, A.







Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Keeling, E. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n,S.)


Langford-Holt, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Mullan, Lieut. C. H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Linstead, H. N.
Nicholson, G.
Touche, G. C.


Lipson, D. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wadsworth, G.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Walker-Smith, D.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Pickthorn, K.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Pitman, I. J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Prescott, Stanley
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Raikes, H. V.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Manningham-Buller, R, E.
Renton, D.



Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Marples, A. E.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Major Conant and


Marsden, Capt. A.
Sanderson, Sir F. 
Mr. Studholme.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 6, line 47, at the end, to insert "and Hospital Management Committees."
This and the following Amendments are all consequential; they extend to the Hospital Management Committees the powers of the Regional Boards.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, after "exchange," to insert "or."
I think it will be for the convenience of the House if this and the next Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, in page 8, line 28, leave out from "note," to end of paragraph, are taken together.
We have just dealt with the general question of endowments. The Subsection with which my Amendment deals concerns what is included under endowments—gratuitous covenants for the payment of money. The effect of the Amendment is to exclude gratuitous covenants from endowments. I thought that the decision which we have just arrived at was rather deplorable because it dealt with moneys left under wills. However, it can be said in its favour that the persons who gave those endowments are not here to say what they would like done with them. But here we are dealing with something quite different, with moneys which persons living have covenanted to give for a certain period of years, and it seems utterly indefensible that such moneys should be taken for purposes other than those for which they were intended.
These covenants may have been entered into for a great variety of reasons. It may

be that the person making a covenant did so because he liked some individual surgeon or doctor serving in the institution, or because he was interested in the particular work of that institution, or because he had received some service from that institution, or, again, because he had confidence in the board of that institution. As the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said in a previous Debate, the covenant may have been made so that the employees of the person making it might benefit, but whatever the reason, it is absolutely certain that such a covenant would be made in order to benefit a particular institution. The whole thing has now been altered and the Minister will take these covenants to spread over the whole field. That seems to be entirely wrong. I would like to put this additional point to the Minister. There is now no need for an employer to insure his employees in this way. He is being asked to pay a large contribution in regard to both his employees and himself, and I cannot see where the justice lies in asking him to pay twice. Does the Minister really think that anyone would have entered into a covenant of this nature under the new circumstances? It seems to me to be highly immoral and, indeed, very akin to robbery.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to second the Amendment.
The essential difference between these covenants and the type of endowment with which we have just been dealing is that in the case of an endowment some provision has to be made to deal with it when the present owners disappear from the scene, but in the case of a covenant when the present owners disappear it simply comes to an end. Here the Minister is going


very much further than in the case of the endowment. He is taking something to which otherwise he would not be entitled. It goes that one step further and, therefore, I suggest that in the case of covenants there is very good ground for saying that no action should he taken and that the covenant should just be allowed to lapse.

Mr. Bevan: There was considerable discussion of this matter in Committee, and there is no substance in the contention which has been advanced. It is directly opposite to what we have just heard. On the one hand, hon. Members opposite are anxious that hospitals should have what we have called all along pocket money, and the purpose of this Amendment is to deprive the hospitals of as much money as they would otherwise have. No real disservice is being done here—

Mr. Willink: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very unfair. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow those people who have entered into covenants to enter into new covenants in favour of the hospitals or the localities which they want to benefit, and not to force them by law to give their money year by year to the Minister to distribute all over the country.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. He does not know what these people would do with the money. Under the terms of the Amendment no one would be in receipt of a gratuity. It would lapse. It is not in the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what they would then do. He does not know. At the moment these gratuitous covenants are the legal property of the voluntary hospitals. They form part of the property and, therefore, should he transferred.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Minister has

said that this matter was discussed in Committee upstairs, but I make no apology for speaking tonight because I was not a Member of the Committee, and this is the only opportunity that Members like myself, who had not the privilege of being on the Committee upstairs, have of presenting the point of view which they hold, and hold sincerely. It is a tradition of this House that one should disclose an interest, and I have an interest which I will now disclose. I have made several covenants, and two in particular to hospitals for special reasons, and to that extent I am an interested party. In the one case I myself had to go into a voluntary hospital for an operation. I received there such treatment that I felt I could never be sufficiently grateful to that hospital, and I did what I could to make by covenant a gift to that hospital in return for the services that I had received from it. In another case a younger brother of mine went into a hospital where he was extremely ill, and many of us thought that he would not recover. He did recover, thanks, I think, almost entirely to the treatment he received at that hospital. I felt it a privilege to be able to help that particular hospital for that particular reason. I would not—and I say it quite frankly—in either of those cases have been moved to make a gift by covenant to either of those hospitals were it not for that particular reason. I do feel that in cases like that—and there must be many such cases, on which I speak for people outside—in which people have made gifts by covenant, to cottage hospitals or to other hospitals, for personal reasons, those personal reasons, tight to be respected. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'or' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 255.

Division No. 264.
AYES
10.5 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Byers, Frank F.
Drewe, C.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Carson, E.
Eccles, D. M.


Assheton, Fit. Hon. R.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L


Astor, Hon. M.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Fletcher W. (Bury)


Baldwin, A. E.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Gage, C.


Beechman, N. A
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bower, N.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Grimston, R. V.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Butcher, H. W.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marples, A. E.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Howard, Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Hurd, A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Maude, J. C.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Keeling, E. H.
Molson, A. H E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Langford-Holt, J.
Mullan, Lieut. C. H.
Touche, G. C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nicholson, G.
Turton, R. H.


Linstead, H. N.
Nutting, Anthony
Wadsworth, G.


Lipson, D. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Walker-Smith, D.


Low, Brig A. R. W.
Osborne, C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Lucas, Major Sir J-
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Pickthorn, K.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Prescott, Stanley
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Raikes, H. V.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Ramsay, Maj. S.



Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Manningham-Buller, R. E
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Major Conant and


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Renton, D.
Mr. Studholme




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irving, W. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Janner, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Diamond, J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dobbie, W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Attewell, H. C.
Donovan T.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Austin, H. L.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kenyon, C.


Ayles, W. H.
Dumpleton, C. W
Key, C. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Dye, S.
Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr E.


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirby, B. V.


Barton, C.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lang, G.


Battley, J. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lavers, S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Belcher, J. W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Benson, G.
Ewart, R.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Berry, H.
Fairhurst F.
Leslie, J. R.


Bevan, Rl. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Farthing, W. J.
Levy, B. W.


Bing, G. H. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Binns, J.
Follick, M
Lindgren, G. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Foot, M. M.
Mc Adam, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
McGhee, H. G.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mack, J. D.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Gibbins, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, H. A.


Burden, T. W.
Grierson, E.
Marshall F. (Brightside)


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H. M.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.


Champion. A. J.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Mikarde, Ian


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Guy, W. H.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R


Cobb, F. A.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Leslie
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Collick, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Collindridge, F.
Harrison, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, C)


Collins, V. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.


Colman Miss G. M.
Haworth, J.
Moyle, A.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Nally, W.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Corvedale, Viscount
Hobson, C. R.
O'Brien, T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.


Daggar, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Horabin, T. L.
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
House, G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J.
Parker, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Deer, G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pearson, A.







Perrins, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Walker, G. H.


Piratin, P.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Warbey, W. N.


Pritt, D. N.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Watkins, T. E


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Solley, L. J.
Weitzman, D.


Randall, H. E.
Soskice, Mai. Sir F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ranger, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Rankin, J.
Stamford, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Reeves, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Swingler, S.
Wilkes, L.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Richards, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willoy, O. G. (Cleveland)


Robens, A.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williamson, T.


Sargood, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willis, E.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Thurtle, E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Tiffany, S.
Wilson, J. H.


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Titterington, M. F.
Wise, Major F. J.


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Tolley, L.
Woodburn A


Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Woods, G. S


Shurmer, P.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Yates, V. F.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Usborne, Henry
Zilliacus, K.


Simmons, C. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.



Skeffington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Skinnard, F. W.
Walkden, E.
Captain Michael Stewar&lt;ob/&gt; and




Mr. Popplewell.

CLAUSE 9.—(Supplementary provisions relating to transfer of hospital property and liabilities.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, at the end, to insert:
other than a right to receive a payment of cost of works or a temporary works payment within the meaning of that Act.
This Amendment is intended to get over a difficulty with regard to the payment of war damage for work that was done by the local authority before the transfer. It enables payment of the money concerned, for the work carried out, to be made to the local authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 12, line 17, after "liabilities," to insert:
to such extent as appears to the Minister to be necessary for the purposes of such transfer.
This deals with the amendment of documents. The Clause was stated in Committee upstairs to be too wide. This provision limits such amendments to the extent indicated in the wording.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11,—(Regional Hospital Boards, Hospital Management Committees and Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 12, line 33, after "may," to insert "by order."

This Amendment carries out an undertaking which the Minister gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 38, at the end, insert:
(2) The order or orders made under the foregoing subsection determining the areas from which the Regional Hospital Boards are to be constituted shall be separate from the order or orders constituting those Boards, and before making any order determining such an area, the Minister shall consult with such bodies and organisations as appear to him to be concerned.

In page 13, line 23, after concerned, "insert" by order."—[Mr. Key.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Functions of Boards and Management Committees.)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 14, line to, to leave out from "area," to the end of line 18, and to insert:
 and for that purpose the Board may appoint such officers as may be necessary.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Hospital Management Committee of any hospital or group of hospitals generally to manage and control the hospital or group of hospitals in accordance with regulations and such directions as may be given by the Minister, and in particular:—

(a)to appoint officers, required to be employed at or for the purposes of the hospital, except specialists;
(b) to maintain any premises forming part of or used in connection with the hospital; 


(c) to acquire on behalf of the Minister and to maintain equipment, furniture and other movable property required for the purposes of the hospital; 
(d) to appoint for each one of the hospitals in a group a House Committee to which they may delegate any of their functions for the control and management of each such hospital." 

The matter raised by this rather long Amendment is, as the Minister will no doubt remind the House in a moment or two, something that has already been discussed. I shall not repeat what was said in Committee, but it is a question of importance. It is the question of whether the Minister will get the best hospital and specialist service, if everybody who is employed in that service is in contract with the Regional Hospital Boards, which, in some cases, will be very remote from the place where such a person is serving. We did urge, and this Amendment in its present form would urge again, that all except specialists should be in contract with the hospital management committees. We believe, for instance, that in the case of the nursing profession, the real loyalty of most nurses is for the hospital in which they work; and as regards other health workers, the same is true. The Minister has said that he is most anxious to facilitate and enable movement for the sake of promotion. On the other hand, we do not wish, and I do not imagine that he wishes, to frighten people off, on the ground that they are to become members of an enormous service, and may be moved about more than they want to be moved. They may say to themselves, for instance," Subject to promotion, we want to work in the hospitals in Manchester, and we do not want to he sent to hospitals in Liverpool." That is the human attitude.
I appreciate that the Minister is not likely to accept the Amendment in these terms, but I would like him to consider this possibility, because in certain areas we may turn out to be right and he may turn out to be wrong. Will he consider inserting in the Bill powers under which, in certain appropriate circumstances as appear good to the Minister of Health, there may be parts of the service in which people can serve their local hospitals, and not in every case be servants of the Regional Boards? The Minister will realise that I am greatly reducing the scope of the Amendment and giving

greater latitude in the organisation of the service. We are advised by competent people that it would be to the advantage of the service that there should be this alternative, in certain parts of the service, in the sphere of the nursing service and of domestic staff. We are advised that recruitment will be much easier if recruitment is to a particular hospital rather than to this very impersonal and novel unit of administration; it has not much of the human element about it, compared with the name of a well-known hospital. We hope that the Minister will consider inserting in the Bill, these additional powers which will enable him where he thinks it right, to have persons in the employment of and in contract with the hospital management committees.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am sympathetic with the intentions which lie behind the Amendment. I believe however that all the purposes he has in mind can be discharged by leaving the structure of the Bill as it is. I do not want to insert the actual functions of the hospital management committees, because that will be done by regulation, which is a more flexible method and enables us to amend the situation, as from time to time, appears necessary. I also agree that in the recruitment of nursing and domestic staff it is desirable to maintain a close and sympathetic link between the nurses and particular hospitals, and that the Regional Boards should be in the background. That, I think, will be achieved, because, apart from the senior officers, all the rest of the staff would be appointed by the hospital management committees. A nurse is much more concerned about who appoints her and with whom she is in daily contact, than she is with the person with whom she has entered into formal contract. The reason for entering into contract with the Regional Board is to provide for greater opportunities of promotion. This is a point to which the trade union movement attaches great importance. As things are, the possibilities of promotion are far too limited. People are in contact with a small hospital unit, and have no opportunity of moving outside. Therefore, I think we have ingeniously satisfied both purposes, by having the appointments made by the hospital management committees which preserves the esprit de corps of hospitals and identification of the


staff with hospital management committees, and also having a formal contract with the Regional Boards which provides reasonable opportunities for promotion.

Mr. Linstead: While not dissenting from what the Minister has now told us about his intentions with regard to the interpretation of this Clause, I think that we ought to place on record the fact that the Clause, as drafted, puts the emphasis on a different spot from that which the Minister has indicated. As the Clause is drawn, it concentrates in the Regional Board a great deal of detailed responsibility for the day to day work of the hospitals. The Minister has explained that that is not intended, but, all the way through this Bill, we have found the situation arising that the Bill says one thing and the Minister tells us that when he comes to exercise his powers under the Bill he proposes to do something quite different. This is a typical example.

Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Gentleman has shown that it is always necessary to preserve in all such services the hierarchical responsibility. First, the responsibility of the Minister to parliament; secondly, the responsibility of the Regional Board to the Minister; and, thirdly, the responsibility of the management committee to the Regional Board. When it comes to the Regional Board, as one is dealing with greater particularity, it is necessary to deal with that by regulation, and it is not necessary to put on the face of the Bill, one part as emphasis against another.

Mr. Linstead: I entirely accept the intention which the Minister has stated, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill could have preserved the hierarchical principle, to which the Minister attaches importance, without having twisted the whole conception of the service in the way that is done here. As the Bill is drawn, it is the duty of the hospital board, to look after the repairs of furniture and the engagement of charwomen. We know that that is not contemplated for a moment, but still I cannot help feeling that this Clause, had it been drawn in the form towards which the Minister's mind is now apparently moving, could have been brought very much closer to what he wants to do.

Mr. Bevan: It is precisely the language which one must use when persons are

in fact, under contract with the Board. There is no other way of stating it. If all the detailed functions of the hospital management committee were precisely stated on the face of the Bill, the Bill would be five times as large as it is.

Mr. Linstead: I think that the Minister has moved considerably from the position which he occupied when this Bill was first drafted. I have felt, during the progress of this Bill through Committee, that whereas it was originally intended that the Regional Hospital Board would be the effective guiding body of a hospital system, that has receded under pressure into the background, and the hospital management committee has come to the forefront as the effective local body in the day to day management of the hospital.

Mr. Messer: One of the complaints of hon. Members opposite was that this system was not already in practice. But a large county council—such as may administer the terms of this Clause—does not appoint every office boy and nurse. They set up committees for that purpose. There are the management committees of the hospitals. Every nurse taken on in a hospital is a member of the hospital staff and, if she gets her training in that hospital, when she goes from it she has the reputation of that hospital behind her. That is the system already in existence, and I understand that the Bill does exactly the same thing.

Mr. Willink: In view of what the Minister has said, I hope that he will consider again what I believe to be our common objectives, and put them into the Bill not only technically but as they would appear to the ordinary reader. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 15,—(Medical schools in London.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, at the end, to insert:
 (2) A scheme prepared and submitted under the last foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless it has been approved by the governing body of the said university, and the said governing body may either approve the scheme without modifications or with such modifications as may be agreed between them and the governing body of the school.
This Amendment deals with the constitution of a new corporate body for dental schools in London, and it makes


clear that such will only come into effect when approved by the university, or if modification can be made after agreement between the school and the university.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Local health authorities.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, after "enactment," to insert:
 conferring functions on any local health authority in their capacity as such an authority.
The effect of this Amendment is to make it clear that local authorities can be combined with a joint board under the Clause only for the purpose of carrying out their functions under this Bill and for no other function such as housing, which a local authority may have.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should say at this stage, that I did not select several earlier Amendments dealing with London, because they can all be discussed on the Amendment which I now call in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink).

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 17, line 40, at the end, to insert:
 (4) The application of this section within the Administrative County of London shall be subject to the following provisions:—

(a) the Council of the Administrative County of London (in this subsection referred to as the county council) shall delegate to the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London, and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs as respects the respective areas of those boroughs, their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to the services hereinafter mentioned, and the Common Council and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs shall discharge the functions so delegated.
(b) the following services shall be the services to which this subsection refers:

(i) arrangements for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and of children who have not attained the age of five years and are not attending primary -schools maintained by a local education authority; 
(ii) provision for the visiting in their homes of such mothers and children as are mentioned in the foregoing paragraph for the purposes mentioned in section twenty-four of this Act; 
(iii) the arrangements for vaccination and immunisation mentioned in section twenty-six of this Act; 

(iv) such arrangements for providing home nursing and domestic help for households as are mentioned in sections twenty-five and twenty-nine of this Act; 
(v)the services relating to notification of births and child life protection to which subsection (3) of section twenty-two of this Act applies; and
(vi) the provision, equipment and maintenance of premises for the foregoing purposes; 

(c) before submitting proposals to the Minister in pursuance of section twenty of this Not the county council shall, in respect of the services to which this subsection applies, consult with the Common Council as respects the provision of such services in the City of London and with the council of each metropolitan borough as respects the provision of such services within the area of the borough, and the provisions of subsections (2) and (5) of section twenty of this Act shall apply as if the Common Council and the council of the metropolitan borough were a voluntary organisation for the purposes of those subsections. 
(d) the county council shall pay to the Common Conned and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs one-half of the cost incurred by them in discharging the functions delegated in pursuance of this section." 

This Amendment relates to the operation of Part III of the Bill within the administrative county of London. The Amendment provides that the operation of these services or most of these services should be on lines agreed between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee partly during the period that I had the honour to occupy the right hon. Gentleman's position and finally in October of last year. Both the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs invited the Minister to take account in the Bill of the special position within the administrative county of London where they are very large authorities, far larger, if I may remind the House, than any of the non-county boroughs that we were discussing earlier.
There was not the same measure of support for this Amendment in Committee as I gather there will be tonight, because you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that certain other Amendments may be discussed at the same time as this one. I notice that a very large group of Members of the party opposite, sitting for constituencies within the administrative county of London, have put down Amendments expressing a view that not only should the health functions be divided as


the boroughs and the London County Council agreed, but that the Bill should go further in the direction of contributing to the metropolitan boroughs, and that inside London, the metropolitan boroughs should be local health authorities with all those functions. I think we on this side of the House feel that the right course would be to accept the view taken by the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs at a time when the situation was exactly as it is today with regard to those services—I will expand that observation in a moment—rather than the wider proposition which I dare say appeals to a great many Members.
10.30 p.m.
It is remarkable that the Minister should have disregarded the express wishes, based upon experience, of the L.C.C. They took their decision at a time when no less than 13 Members of the party opposite, including three of those who sit with the right hon. Gentleman on those benches, were present and voted in favour of this division of duties. It is strange that the Parliamentary Secretary should be found tonight, as in the Committee, putting forward a view exactly contrary to that for which he pressed strongly in the discussions between the metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C. At the time of those discussions, the Parliamentary Secretary said, local residents had come to an agreement to regard the town hall as the centre to which they might come with their problems; that the removal of these health functions was wrong in principle, and that it would leave in the metropolitan boroughs "a hollow organisation with no work to perform." That is what the hon. Gentleman said in negotiations with the L.C.C., and I am bound to say I waited with interest to hear what his grounds would be for his change of view on passing from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee to the Ministry of Health. I thought he would tell us that he had learned something new in the Minister's proposals for removing the hospitals from the L.C.C.—that the L.C.C. would be hopelessly idle. It would have been a curious contention, because all of us know that the L.C.C. are greatly overburdened, and that the average citizen of good will cannot possibly undertake the duty of serving on the London County Council because, if he consulted the leaders on either side,

he would be told that, if he was serious about it, it would take two to three full days a week; whereas everybody knows that in the metropolitan boroughs, if their functions are to be commented on at all, it would be doubtful whether they have sufficient functions to attract the really good, active people.
At any rate, the Parliamentary Secretary took the view that I have already reported, that there would be "nothing more than a hollow organisation with no work to do." I must admit that I and other Members on this side of the House who were present in the Committee, were profoundly shocked by the justification that the Parliamentary Secretary gave for his change of attitude. What he said was that the fact that I had called attention to his earlier observations was—and I am now quoting his own words:
 a testimony to my sincerity and success as a democrat in giving expression to the opinions of the body whose chairman I happened to be, even although those opinions were not innately my own."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 5th June, 1946,c. 472]
I remember in the early days when I entered this House, hearing a similar observation, made on 30th July, 1942, by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Lord President of the Council. When explaining what was, to some extent, a similar volte face in the matter of local authority finance, he said:
 When I was functioning as the spokesman of the local authorities…the local authorities were my chiefs. I was speaking to their brief.'—[OEFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1942, Vol. 382, c. 787.]
If this is what we must expect in the way of sincerity from right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, if we are to believe what they say about giving expression to views that are not their own, then it is a matter which at any rate, among us on this side of the House, gives rise to great alarm and apprehension. Now I gather that on the other side of the House it is considered proper in public affairs to give vent to opinions in great earnestness which are nor one's own. That is not my own view, nor is it the view of anybody on this side of the House.
The other very serious matter with regard to the London problem is this—that there was set up at the time of the Coalition Government, and there has been maintained until today, a very important


and responsible committee which is considering two matters. One is whether the boundaries arid, indeed, the numbers, of the metropolitan boroughs are as good as they might be; and, the other, what should be the division of functions between that very overburdened body, the London County Council, and the metropolitan boroughs, as they are at present or as they will be in the future. It was elicited from the Minister that up to the time of the discussion in Committee, he had neither asked that committee, presided over by Lord Reading, its views as to the proper allocation of these functions—I do not know whether he has vet consulted them—nor did he consult the metropolitan boroughs themselves, whose functions were being taken away. I am bound to say that we on this side of the House regard the removal of functions, some of them most important functions from the human point of view, without any consultation with the local authorities, as a grossly tyrannical act. When one considers the experience of these authorities, the fact that their population goes up in one case to no less than 350,000 and in a number of cases to well over 200,000, it seems fantastic that authorities with that population should not be considered fit to be entrusted with maternity and child welfare, with health visiting, with home nursing, domestic help, and matters of that kind.
The Minister made an excuse that this would put him into a difficulty with the non-county boroughs. That has been discussed earlier this evening. It has always been obvious that the problem is an entirely different one. The allocation of functions between the London County Council and the boroughs is an entirely different problem, and has been treated as a different problem from that of the allocation of functions between normal county councils and what are called county districts. But the Parliamentary Secretary was quite right. He has not given any reason except that he was insincere on the earlier occasion, because I cannot describe as anything other than insincere the fervid advocacy in public affairs, of views which are not one's own.

Mr. Key: Oh.

Mr. Willink: The Parliamentary Secretary expresses surprise. Am I really to understand that Ministers on the Front

Bench believe it is sincere earnestly to advocate policies in which they do not believe? The Parliamentary Secretary does not reply.
Is the Minister, in view of the opinion which is now, I think, universal in every one of the 28 metropolitan boroughs, and, I am sure, I can add the City of London, to the effect that the London County Council were perfectly right in their view that these functions should be divided in the future as they have been in the past—is the Minister going to assert that his personal view should override that altogether? Is he going to say that these services in the hands of authorities—who will be gravely discouraged and greatly depressed with regard to all their future life and activity—should be handed over to be dealt with under what is called local government, but is not local government at all in any sense which applies in any other part of the country? The London County Council consists at the moment of 120 elected representatives of something between 3 and 4 million people, with constituencies that are not wards or parishes, or anything of the kind such as one finds in any other part of the country, but are constituencies of the same size as, and indeed in other respects identical with, those represented by Members of Parliament. We regard it, and I gather that hon. Members on the other side of the House in large numbers also regard it, as quite disastrous that this should be handed over to be run by the London County Council, with all the efficiency of that body, because if any services are local, human services, they are those included in this Part of the Bill. No doubt the Minister will again talk of administrative difficulties, but the administrative difficulty which he is taking upon himself by transferring these functions to the London County Council are quite unnecessary, and he would be giving effect to the wish of all the local authorities in London if he would concede this point and put into the Bill what they have unanimously asked him to include.

Mr. Bevan: I regret very much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have seen fit to repeat this evening, in almost the precise words, the offensive language he used about my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage. It hardly lies in the mouth of a King's Counsel to complain


about "the fervent advocacy of opinions that arc not his own."

Mr. Willink: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the functions of an advocate are the same as those of a statesman?

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me, I will address myself to the argument, which I had anticipated. My hon. Friend was speaking in a representative capacity, and I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest now that hypocrisy mounts in direct ratio to skill of advocacy. Because my hon. Friend put his case with considerable cogency, he exposes himself to a charge of insincerity, but I suppose that had he put it tepidly it would have been all right. The fact is that at that time my hon. Friend, in his capacity as Chairman of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, was putting the point of view which he had been asked to put by his colleagues, and I think it is hardly proper for the right hon. and learned Gentleman now, in order to score a debating point, to use offensive language concerning my hon. Friend, whose record and reputation in the public service, are at least equal to those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): They would be very poor if they were not.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced this evening the same jaded arguments which have already been replied to in Committee. For example, he roundly abused me for not having consulted the Reading Committee. I informed the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Reading Commitee was passing peacefully to its close, largely as a consequence of the fact that the terms of reference laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman had never permitted the Committee any vitality at all.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Willink: The right hon. Gentleman must state the facts accurately. The terms of reference of the Reading Committee were based on a White Paper issued by a Government of which the Prime Minister was a member.

Mr. Bevan: That does not alter the fact at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had responsibility tot it, Was he insincere in doing so?

Mr. Willink: I really do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I never suggested for one moment that I was in dissent from these recommendations, and I should have considered it most dishonourable to put them forward, if I had not been in agreement with them. There is another point I do not understand. The Minister seems to have suggested that I based my suggestion of discreditable insincerity on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of advocacy. My point about insincerity is that I have always understood that it was improper in public affairs to put forward a point of view in which one did not believe.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that in laying down the terms of reference for the Reading Committee, he did what he thought was correct, but it was a sentence of death on that Committee. In fact, it led a puny life from the start, and now it has succumbed—

Mr. Willink: Has it?

Mr. Bevan: Yes. I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman upstairs that the committee could not function. One of the reasons was that it was asked to discuss the proper division of functions between the metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council. Everybody knows that the London County Council problem has long ago transcended the mere question of relations between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs. There is a Greater London problem and there is a London County Council problem. The whole thing will have to be considered, and that is my strongest reply to the position taken up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We will have to consider it in the light of the shifting of population. New towns are being established We shall have to try to redistribute a proportion of this highly congested population. New relations will have to be established between the local government units, whatever authority may preside over the wider London area. The whole thing is in flux, and that is one of the reasons why we ought not at this moment to change one of the main provisions of this


Bill to deal with a situation which, in the very nature of things, is bound to be transitory.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the metropolitan boroughs desired to have these functions. Of course they do. It would be astonishing if the metropolitan boroughs enthusiastically saw functions going from them to the London County Council. In the case of London I am following the same principles which are applied to the rest of the country. It would be very difficult indeed to make an exception for the metropolitan boroughs which would not at once expose me to attack from all the other authorities in the country. We want the health functions to march with the educational functions, and the metropolitan boroughs are not educational authorities. I know that my hon. Friends are anxious that we should try to end this sitting as early as possible and therefore I do not wish to develop arguments which are familiar to everybody here. I hope it will be possible in London to secure a degree of decentralisation by means of a proper London scheme worked out in cooperation between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs.
No one here denies the necessity for trying to bring as near to the homes of the people as possible the bodies responsible for maternity and child welfare services. That we shall strive to do, and it will he part of my duty as Minister when examining the London scheme to see that as much decentralisation as possible is brought into it in order that local people may have an interest in the administration of the service. There are many artificial divisions between the metropolitan boroughs. They are not necessarily the units that ought to provide certain services. It may be found, in many respects, that area committees on which there are a number of metropolitan boroughs would be a better solution of the problem. It seems to me, therefore, that we ought to keep this matter entirely flexible, and while I am not surprised at the metropolitan boroughs being anxious to discharge certain functions, I suggest that even in the case of London it is not desirable that we should make a departure which would appear to create a sense of injustice in all the other local authorities in the country.

Mr. Assbeton: Although I was disappointed that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were not able to call the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) and myself, none the less I am grateful to you for allowing me to put this point in discussion on this Amendment. As the House will appreciate, I am addressing myself to a limited problem here—the problem of the position of the City of London—but an important one, and the object of the Amendment which I had sought to propose, and the Amendment which I hope the Minister may carefully consider before this Bill comes back to this House, was to give the City of London, for the purposes of this Clause, the status of a county borough.
I think the House is aware that this problem always arises in connection with legislation for London, and any Bills which have given powers to the County Council in the past have had some provision for dealing with the position of the City of London. I cite, for example, one instance only to raise the point with the House. In the case of the Town and Country Planning Bill, where the London County Council is the planning authority for London, the City of London is in fact the planning authority for the City, and this is precisely what I am suggesting should be done under this Bill.
I know the House is aware that there is no exact counterpart to the Corporation of the City of London. It is not a municipal corporation, and the Legislature has frequently conferred upon it powers similar to those held by the councils of counties and boroughs. However, I am not advancing this proposition merely on historical or sentimental grounds. I am advancing it because I am sure that if the powers of a local health authority are entrusted to the Common Council, they will be administered with efficiency, and they will retain that personal touch which is a feature, as we have heard so often tonight, of local control. I think the House will agree, or at any rate those who are familiar with the problems of London will agree, that the administration of the City of London in this particular case is quite beyond reproach. At the present time the Corporation administers a tuberculosis dispensary and a V.D. clinic, and the Corporation is also a wel-


fare authority and holds a child welfare clinic. All these clinics are held in St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where they are not only economically but very efficiently run, and I am sure the House is aware of the association of the City of London with St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Moreover, it is an advantage to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, as a teaching hospital, to have a domiciliary personal service of this kind run in connection with it.
I do not know what the Minister's view may be, but I suggest to him that he should consider, before this Bill comes back from another place, whether or not he could not meet the point which I have made. I think that earlier in the course of our discussions today the Minister said that he had made the interest and the health of the patient the touchstone of his decisions in this matter. I suggest to the House that in this case he cannot say that the patient would suffer in any way, if the Amendment which is down in my name were to be accepted. On those grounds I ask him to consider this Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman: I wish to address the House in regard to the problem of London, because I represent one of the metropolitan boroughs. I rather regret some of the personal elements which have crept into this discussion, but I want to present to the House the fact that practically all the metropolitan boroughs feel very intensely about this matter. I think it only right and proper, in spite of what the Minister has said, that the views of the metropolitan boroughs should be pressed upon the attention of the House. I want to try to deal with this matter logically, and I would put it in this way. Under the Bill the local health authority is to be, for the county, the county council, and for the borough, the county borough council. You start off in that way by taking what is a natural unit, a unit where the administration already exists. It is not a question of taking figures of population, but of taking a natural unit as it exists, in the county council or county borough. In regard to these county councils or county borough councils, considerable criticism can be directed against them from the point of view that they vary so much in regard to numbers. Taking the 1931 census figures, there are 13 counties and 41

county boroughs with populations of less than 100,000. The county of Rutland has 17,000. There are three Welsh counties with less than 50,000. It is not even a question of taking rateable value. It is a question of taking what, I suggest, is the natural unit. By way of contrast, if you take the London County Council as a health authority and you leave the London County Council as health authority to deal with the matter, you are dealing with a body which has a population of more than 4,000,000.
I know the Minister has said something in regard to London not being in a special position. I venture to join issue with him on that. I think London is in a very special position. The fact that it is in a special position has always been recognised. It has been recognised in regard to the immensity of the population, the way it has grown up, and the fact that right through legislation in this House, special Acts of Parliament, like the Public Health Act, the London Building Act, and, even as late as 1939, the London Government Act, have specially dealt with London having regard to its population and special problems. I suggest that no regard is paid here to the 28 metropolitan boroughs, and I would ask the Minister why is the health authority based on a convenient administrative unit in one case, as I have illustrated, and why in London is it not based on the metropolitan borough? What possible argument is there that under the scheme the London County Council will function more efficiently as a health authority than the metropolitan borough council. I suggest to the Minister, that every argument is against him. The London County Council is the only county council that has not had welfare work; that is because the metropolitan borough councils have dealt with the welfare work. These metropolitan borough councils are the natural units in this case. They have had great experience of welfare work, they have carried out their duties efficiently, and it is they, I suggest, who should do this work.
11.0 p.m.
One of the most important arguments to which I suggest the Minister should pay regard, in this matter, is that if he takes the London County Council as a unit in this matter, he is making a new organisation to deal with this service. The London


County Council is an entirely new body from the point of view of a health authority. On the other hand, if he utilises the metropolitan borough councils he will be utilising an existing organisation which has vast experience, in every case, in this matter. He will then have a unit on which he can naturally build a health authority. The metropolitan borough councils have an excellent record in this respect. Their local health service, the care of mothers and young children, are all matters essentially calling upon a knowledge of local conditions, matters which require the personal intimate touch. I press upon the House the consideration that with a unit of 4 million people we shall lose that personal touch, we shall be divorced from it to a great extent. The great thing in a health service is to have this personal touch. If I may be pardoned, I will point to my own borough of Stoke Newington. It is only a small borough with 50,000 people, but it is a model borough in regard to health services. I suggest that when we are initiating a venture of this kind, we should utilise the experience, initiative and ability of the local people.
In any case, I suppose that it must be conceded that the L.C.C. will be unable to deal with this matter except by its distribution into certain areas. I should think that that will be inevitable in working out this matter. It that is to be the case why not immediately take the areas as being those of the metropolitan borough councils? After all, they exist and they have experience of the work. I only intervened in this Debate quite briefly to put this point on behalf of the borough councils. I respectfully suggest to the House that when we have a great Bill of this kind, contemplating a wonderful advance in the health service for the people, it is wrong that the borough councils, with their great experience and personal touch, should not he utilised.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Mr. Henry Strauss rose——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Strauss: I wish I could understand the groans from the opposite side of the House. I cannot understand Why some hon. Members—[Interruption.] Subject only to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I propose to make my speech. It will only be made longer by foolish interruptions from the opposite side of the House. I should

not have intervened, after the admirable speech to which we have just listened, if it were not for the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) is unable to be here, because he is on the other side of the world at the present moment. I know that if he were here he would say how very strongly we in Chelsea, I think independently of party, feel on this subject. I do not know of any matter which has affected local patriotism more in recent years.
One point taken by the right hon. Gentleman was the differentiation between London and other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) pointed out, quite accurately, a number of quite recent Acts, Local Government Acts and others, in which this distinction is drawn I will give another example, which will be familiar to every Minister on the front bench opposite. This difference is so well recognized that the London County Council has never considered itself to be represented by the County Councils' Association, but has separate representation at meetings of local authorities' associations. A differentiation between London and other parts of the country is well recognised. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman said? He said that there was a great deal which was changing in the structure of local authorities, and the matter was in a state of flux. That, I suggest, is an argument, not in favour of what he is doing, but in favour of what he is asked to do by this Amendment. His proposal almost kills the metropolitan boroughs, and it deprives them of functions almost more important than any other which they possess. He is taking, without consultation of those principally concerned, the most violent and drastic action to end their lives. There is only one other matter. He said in defence of the Parliamentary Secretary things which constituted a most curious defence on the points put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). He said that the Parliamentary Secretary was, as an advocate, justified in putting certain points, and he did not necessarily share the point of view which he put forward. When an advocate is talking professionally, everybody knows that he is—

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacher rose——

Mr. Strauss: I see that it has almost begun to dawn on the Communist Party. Nobody is deceived, and nobody suggests that an advocate needs to share the views he advances as advocate. The whole point we wish to know is, was the Parliamentary Secretary putting forward his own case? I would say that I have always held a high regard for the Parliamentary Secretary, and up to the time I heard the defence produced by the right hon. Gentleman, I should have said that the Parliamentary Secretary would never have produced an argument of that kind. I would never have said that he was speaking as an advocate at a time when he was speaking as a representative of the local authorities.

Mr. Key: I was not speaking as a representative of the local authority. I was speaking as Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee, and I was airing my views as Chairman of that Committee at the conference.

Mr. Strauss: I am most obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not doubt for one moment that he thought he was doing the right thing, and I have no doubt that he thinks so now. But on reconsideration he will himself come to the conclusion that where one is speaking for such a body and is putting forward views with which one does not oneself agree, he would now say he should have said that he was speaking only on behalf of that body. I do not believe it is in the interests of this House that the idea should get abroad that people speak as advocates and argue the things which they do not personally believe, when they do not declare that they are speaking as advocates.

Mr. Gallaeher: Mr. Gallaeher rose——

Mr. Strauss: This has as much to do with the Amendment as what the right hon. Gentleman said on the same subject, although the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is interrupting.
London is, admittedly, in an entirely different position from other parts of the country. The compromise which was the considered conclusion of the metropolitan boroughs and of the London County Council represents, I suggest, the wishes of the people within the area of the London County Council infinitely

better than the proposal in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. On no matter within recent years has local patriotism been so much excited, and people keen on local government, not only in the Conservative Party but also in the Socialist Party, have been very greatly shocked by the proposals in this Bill. For those reasons I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to close his mind entirely to an Amendment which has great support in his own party, even if it is not declared tonight, which has great support in London, and which, if he accepts it, will greatly improve his Bill.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Speaker called this Amendment, and Mr. Speaker exercises his judgment in these matters. I do not even raise a whisper about it. But I think perhaps it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if we could have a Division on the matter, because the discussion is becoming repetitious. We have had a great deal of it, hon. Members opposite have given certain undertakings, and I am sure that they desire—

Sir William Darling: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to challenge a decision of the Chair, Sir?

Mr. Bevan: I only suggested, for the convenience of hon. Members, that we might have a Division.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I hope the House will be willing to come to a decision.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am unwilling to let this important Amendment pass from the House without raising my voice in its support. I am a Londoner, and I am proud of it. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health understands the first thing about London local feeling. There is tremendous local patriotism in the London boroughs. Anybody who has had the privilege of sitting on the council of a London borough knows it, and London self-government, which reaches its climax in the London County Council, has its roots in the borough councils. If we take these functions away from the local London boroughs, we shall be emasculating the whole system of London self government. I cannot add very much to what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke Newington


(Mr. Weitzman). He put the case with admirable succinctness, and I do indeed congratulate him on the courage he had, as a member of a well-disciplined party, in evading the gag and in challenging his own Minister. I hope we shall find him with us in the Lobby.
As late as this year the London County Council agreed with the substance of this Amendment. It is the unanimous wish of all the London boroughs that these functions should be left to them. Both from the point of view of local patriotism and on the grounds of efficiency, I am perfectly certain that this steady progress in the direction of snuffing out local initiative and local public spirit is to be deplored. I am not making a personal attack on the Minister in any way, but I do beg him, as a Welshman, to consider London local feeling, to try to find out a little about it, to try to learn a little about local government in London. He will find there is just as keen a local patriotism in the borough council of which I had the honour to be a member—namely, Finsbury—as there is in any of the Welsh towns. I beg him to reconsider this. I am perfectly certain that he will not regret it—though I do not suppose he ever goes so far as to regret anything in his life. I do assure him that his supporters on that side of the House, and his opponents on this side, will regard this as a great blemish on what is, in many ways, a great Bill.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Howard: I have been asked by my borough council to support an Amendment which is on the Paper in the names of hon. Members supporting the Government but which has not been called. That Amendment goes much further than the Amendment now under discussion. I think that the best way in which I can perform my duties on behalf of my borough council is to support this Amendment. On the merits of the Amendment I wish to make only two observations. The Minister has based his argument on administrative and legislative convenience. He asked us to consider the type of service which would be received by the people of London. I am convinced that the people of London have received extremely good service through and from the borough councils up to date, and that

they are more likely to get an equally good service in the future if it is provided by the same authorities. I, therefore, desire to support the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson: I do not think this discussion can go much further without making it clear that there is not unanimity of opinion in London boroughs on this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite have been trying to make a case on the assumption that the whole of the 28 London boroughs are behind the sort of suggestion which is contained in this Amendment. That is not true, because a number are opposed to it. The hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard), has referred to his borough, but for my part I can say that my borough does not agree with the proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "What borough?"]. If hon. Members will look it up in Vacher they will see where it is. I want to put two points, to make it clear that this proposal is not supported unanimously by the London boroughs. Firstly, this Amendment does not carry out the arrangement made in 1944. It has been-suggested that the understanding which was arrived at in 1944, between the borough councils in London and the L.C.C., would be implemented if this Amendment were carried. That is not correct, because it does not include all the powers of the 1944 arrangement. Secondly, the situation then was very different. The Bill was a very different Bill, and the circumstances surrounding it were very different from those which we are discussing today. For one thing, the voluntary hospitals were not included. On this occasion a large number of us, feel that the Minister is right in the setup which this Bill provides.
It is quite true that in some boroughs there has been tremendous enthusiasm about such services as a maternity and child welfare service, but the enthusiasm is not universal. I believe that this Bill will give us a universal, highly efficient maternity and welfare service for all the people of London. I think this Bill will give that opportunity, for there are many people who are working hard for these services. It is suggested that the scheme which the L.C.C. will have to prepare could provide by a devolution of administration for the use of all the energies of these people. I have no authority to speak for the L.C.C., although I am a mem-


ber of it, but I know that the council have decided by public resolution to bring in the widest possible measure of local enthusiasm in connection with these services in the scheme which this Bill will build up. Therefore I suggest that the Amendment not only does not carry out the 1944 arrangement which was used as a justification for it, but it also does not give the opportunities for service which have been given in the past.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I represent a London borough and therefore I am glad to have an opportunity of saying something about this very important matter. I am quite certain there is no subject which engages the attention and enthusiasm of borough councils more than these questions of maternity and child welfare, to which the people have rendered at all times such good service. I do not think any services have been carried on with greater efficiency and no complaints can be made about the manner in which the metropolitan boroughs have carried out their responsibilities with regard to these services. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) on the excellent way in which he put the case for the metropolitan boroughs. These services are essentially personal, human, with the human touch and that great essential local knowledge, and I do not believe that they can be improved on in the local boroughs by any committee or body set up by the L.C.C. How can they be more efficient because the L.C.C. intends to be responsible for them instead of the metropolitan boroughs? How can the L.C.C. by the action they are taking put more enthusiasm into the people operating these services, how can they with their centralised organisation supply anything which is lacking just because they are going to operate these services, and eliminate the local interest and borough responsibility which has worked so well and efficiently in the past? It is essentially a matter for the boroughs, in the interest of the people concerned. There is no case for these services being transferred to the L.C.C., and how they are going to be better carried on by the L.C.C. I cannot conceive. I am opposed to these powers being taken away by the L.C.C. and I hope the Minister will reconsider the question and see to it that these services will remain with the metropolitan boroughs.

Sir W. Darling: It is obvious that this is a matter upon which the House feels very deeply. This is no more nor less than the proposed destruction of 28 London boroughs. What London does today, possibly the provinces will do tomorrow. My intervention in this Debate is not an irrelevancy. I believe in local government, and I protest against the whole tendency of this Bill. This is Welsh barbarism, sweeping from the West over our civilisation. I beg the Minister not to be carried away, as many of us who come from little countries are apt to be carried away, by megalomania. The English are a big people, and they built a big Empire. The Welsh and the Scots are sometimes a little small-minded, and great Empires and little minds go ill together. I am suggesting that this Bill, and particularly this Clause, strikes at something in which democracy believes. I believe that the boroughs in this country were the very foundation of our human and democratic rights, and I did not think it would have been possible in this Chamber for a Minister representing a Socialist Government to bring forward such a proposal as this. It can only be explained on the grounds of megalomania.
I shall support the Amendment because I believe that a thing is not good because it is big. I believe that Wales would not be a greater country if it were ten times its size. I believe very strongly in the local tradition, in these men and women who crowd round their own houses and who, by their own efforts, build up the community. I think that this is something which is very precious, which should not be destroyed by a Tory Party, and certainly should be preserved by a Socialist Party. Are we going to take people more and more away from the government which controls their lives and directs their destinies, or are we going to bring them closer to it? This Clause is going to take the people of London far away and remote from local government. I understand the Minister used a phrase in an earlier speech, about the higher hierarchies. As a Tory and a democrat, I am not in favour of higher hierarchies. This type of organisation is remote and inhuman and contrary to that warm Socialism to which I believe the Minister has given his life. I could not believe that he, of all Ministers, would bring this matter before the House of Commons. A few days ago—this is a


secret and a matter of some domestic importance—I had the privilege of lending to one of my fellow Members, a silk hat to go to a garden party. I mention this matter because it indicates the generous character of my mind. I want to ask the Minister to accept from me—and I make this offer publicly—a book which was published in1900, written by Gilbert Keith Chesterton. The name of that book is "The Napoleon of Notting Hill." That great dramatic story tells how the mayor of Notting Hill fought the mayor of Hammersmith in Hyde Park, and died in

defence of his little borough. These little boroughs are part of our history and neither Welshmen nor Scotsmen should touch them. I beg the Minister to accept this Amendment because, if he does not, all along the valleys of Wales and up to the hills of Scotland it will be said in future that our burgher law organisation, which has been the foundation of our liberties, has been destroyed by the present Minister of Health.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 224.

Division No. 265.
AYES.
11.30 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Nicholson, G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony


Astor, Hon. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Osborne, C.


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Pickthorn, K.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Prescott, Stanley


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Raikes, H. V.


Byers, Frank F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Langford-Holt, J-
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Dodds-Parker A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr P. W
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wadsworth, G.


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Marples A. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marsden, Capt. A
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gage, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Maude, J. C
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Mellor, Sir J



Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Commander Agnew and




Mr. Studholme.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Daggar, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Attewell, H. C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, R.J. (Westhoughton)


Austin, H. L.
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Deer, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bacon, Miss A,
Burke, W. A.
Delargy, Captain H. J.


Baird, Capt. J.
Champion. A. J.
Diamond, J.


Balfour, A.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Dobbie, W.


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collindridge, F.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Belcher, J. W.
Collins, V. J.
Dye, S.


Benson, G.
Colman, Miss G. M
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Edelman, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Blackburn, A. R.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Blyton, W. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Bottomley, A. G.
Crawley, A.
Evans, S, N. (Wednesbury)




Ewart, R.
McGhee, H. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Fairhurst F.
McGovern, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Farthing, W. J.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, Capt. J. W


Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Solley, L. J.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Macpherson T. (Romford)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gallacher, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Gibbins, J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sparks, J. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Marshall F. (Brightside)
Stamford, W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Medland, H. M.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Messer, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Swingler, S.


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Grierson, E.
Morgan, Dr. H, B.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Nally, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Titterington, M. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Tolley, L.


Harrison, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
O'Brien, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Haworth, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Usborne, Henry


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Orbach, M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Walkden, E.


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Walker, G. H.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B. T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Warbey, W. N.


House, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Watkins, T. E


Hoy, J.
Perrins, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hudson, J, H. (Ealing, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkes, L.


Irving, W. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rankin, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Keenan, W.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Konyon, C,
Richards, R.
Williamson, T.


Key, C. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Willis, E.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Robens, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Kinley, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilson, J. H.


Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R,
Wise, Major F. J


Lang, G.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Woods, G. S.


Layers, S.
Sharp, Lt.-Col, G. M.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcrose, C. N. (Widnes)
Yates, V. F.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Zilliacus, K.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton]
Shurmer, P.



Lindgren, G. S
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


McAdam, W.
Skeftington, A. M.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Proposals for provision of services by local health authority.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 18, line 12, to leave out the first "the" and to insert "any."
This effects the change that where a local authority covers two Regional Hospital Boards, both boards shall receive the proposals of the local authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 18, line 13, after "authority," insert "or any part thereof."

In line 15, at the end, insert:
and—
(c) on every local authority for an area forming part of the area of the local health authority.''

In line 16, leave out "or."

In line 16, after "Board," insert "or authority."

In line 44, after "(b)," insert "or paragraph (c)."—-[Mr. Key.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Health Centres.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 19, line 33, to leave out Subsection (3).

This is consequential on the new Clause added to the Bill on recommittal.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Midwifery. 2 Edw. 7. c. 17.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 28, at the end, insert:
 and for the words ' said county or county borough ' there shall be substituted the words ' said authority'."—[Mr. Key.]

CLAUSE 32.—(Local representative committees.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 24, line 19, after the first "the," to insert "Local."

Amendment agreed to.

This Amendment makes a change in the name of these committees similar to the local medical committee.

Further Amendment made:

In page 24, line 19, leave out "Dental Practitioner," and insert "Local Dental." —[Mr. Key.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.40 p.m.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I had intended tonight to raise with the Minister of Transport the question arising out of the reduction of the Traffic Commissioners in Scotland from two to one. Unfortunately, the notice was very short. I did my best to get into touch with the Minister or the Parliamentary-Secretary, but I have not been successful. I want to make it plain that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction all over the North of Scotland over this, and I or one of the other Scottish Members will certainly raise this question at the very earliest opportunity.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.